I'm taking November, and I can completely relate. I work well over 40hrs a wk as a reporter, often irregular hours, so I can completely sympathize with burn out. Hell, I felt burnt out before I got back into LSAT studying lol. That said, I feel like I've made a lot more progress now that I've let myself take a breather now and then. That burnout can really make your studying less effective. The balance of rest/study is a hard one to strike and definitely very personal, but I found that I really needed more rest than I had been giving myself. I'm still struggling with the schedule, but god willing I'll be free in a few months, so fingers crossed.

#help

I'm a bit confused by their use of the word "correlation". Without specifying if it's a positive or negative correlation, we can't conclude that the argument is strengthened by the "correlation". It may well be a negative correlation, which would weaken their argument. Are we supposed to assume that any use of the word "correlation" by the LSAT means a positive correlation?

#help

I'm still not sure I understand why E is incorrect. The passage specifically uses the language "must", implying complete and total certainty. "Suggested" does not imply certainty at all. The logical jump from a suggestion to asserting that something based wholly on logic derivative of that suggestion "must" be true, is huge. That's not even mentioning the appeal to authority issues.

Is this one of those things where its right, but not the most right answer?

Also, where's the delineation for when we consider an appeal to authority valid?

Would "a prominent physicist" be valid? Several/two/three/etc. prominent physicists? Many physicists? Several well-regarded physicists? A tenured physicist? Etc.

Last, is the singular "physicist" in answer E enough to invalidate the answer entirely? As in, is it the lack of a plural sufficiently incorrect that no matter what the rest of the answer contained, it would be wrong?