Dear fellow 7sagers,
The upcoming test will be my third and so last LSAT I'll be taking before I apply to law schools.
But there is a problem, namely, that I can't locate PT 76 anywhere.
I've taken all the PTs besides 75 and 76 and it's really important to me that I take PT 76 before test date.
Do any of you guys know where I might get it? If it is the case that it hasn't been published, do you know when it might become available?
Thanks!
Hey fellow 7sagers, and a special hi to those in Korea.
I've taken the LSAT in June and got a 169, and am looking for a study partner or two who'll help me stay motivated (as will I to you(s)) for the upcoming December LSAT.
I believe that we could be most helpful to each other if you have at least scored a 168~169 on the real test and/or have been PTing in the 170s. (For those of you who'd like to know more about me: I have graduated from college in the U.S. and was born in 1990)
I'll be studying in Gangnam (Apgujeongdong) or Bundang. I work at a prep academy so I can provide space for mock tests.
hit me up if you're interested!
no, A-> B doesn't imply "B some not A", but it may. In other words, It might turn out that A->B and, simultaneously, that B->A, which means that "B some not A" doesn't follow. But it also might turn out that B is a circle in which A is just a subset of B, which would mean that There are some B's that are not As. Do you get it?
Go to print setting and select "actual size", not "fit". I don't share the problem that you have when I do this.
This may sound silly, but I fell for C because I thought that "Most of the commonplace beliefs of most people are true" was so remotely related to the main conclusion, and only somewhat better supported the last sentence. That is to say, I thought that C was right because the last sentence gives support for main conclusion, whereas the sentence before is just a premise for the last sentence, and not the conclusion. Does my reasoning make any sense, or should it be that since the "Most of the commonplace..." sentence lends support to the last sentence, it should also be taken to give support to the main conclusion?
J.Y,
I still have a lingering question. The conclusion says "If one drives a large car rather than a small car, then one is less likely to be injured IN an automobile accident". Isn't this saying that, "IF you drive a large car rather than small car, AND IF you have an accident, THEN you will be less likely injured" ?
If my understanding of the conclusion is correct, we do NOT need to consider whether a large car is more likely to get involved in accidents in the first place.
Still, (D) is the right answer, and here is my take on it: IF a large car is FAR more likely to be involved in an accident, THEN, it could be the case that of the 10,000 people we surveyed, there may have been disproportionately MORE LARGE CAR accidents than small car accidents (For example, 8,000 LARGE car accidents VS. 2,000 SMALL car accidents, since it's FAR more likely).
This could create a serious sample bias. It doesn't necessarily falsify the conclusion, but it attacks the reasoning of the argument, and the argument will have no evidence to back up its conclusion. In other words, the survey should have involved equal numbers of large and small car accidents in the first place in order to make a conclusion comparing the two.
TLDR; (D) gives us a reason to think that the survey's sample could have been distorted in the first place, which could make the conclusion wrong.
What do you think..?
Thanks guys. I'll try your suggestions, except, I'm in Korea and I don't have access to a library with books from the U.S. lol.. but! I can try the cornell website. :) GL!
Hey, fellow 7sagers.
I'm having trouble with law passages in reading.
Knowing this, I now freeze when I see a passage about law.
Any advice on what outside material or reading might help?
I read the Economist and Scientific American, but they don't seem to provide much help in terms of
law passages..
i didn't choose B because "primary" seemed like a stretch. that is, if "primary prerequisite" was replaced by "one of the prerequisites" I would have very well chosen B. i don't really see how Jon's takes "Adam has no experience in critiquing essays" to indicate that "primary" is implied.
coming to think of it, isn't B right because stretching is ok for sufficient assumption questions? because there is nothing doing more than closing the gap in an argument so long as the gap is closed. wouldn't that be a better explanation?
maybe i'm being a little grumpy.. sorry..
Thanks guys!