questions 1 through 15 are typically the easier questions on the exam, with the later questions meant to be harde:

Look at what question types you're struggling with, and trap answers you're falling

Look at how your spending your time on questions

Do super sets (take the last thirteen / twelve questions from two tests form them into one dril) perform in 35 mintutes as many as you can accurately.

One lr was super yikes found myself with quite a few flags.

The other was normal in comparison to pt's 85+.

Games, was hard at first glance then super easy

Rc, Got lucky struggled with the first passage due to nerves (and this being my first section) but after that it was smoothe sailing.

worst case scenario, just re-write in january after doing some prep during christmas break to re-fresh

For me at least:

new boards all the way and it's not even close. Erasing makes a mess and like you said erases valuable information for could be true / must be true questions (I'm not sure I subscribe to the thought that these questions are few and far between however). Additionally it just takes too long once you've gotten good at setting up boards based of your master game board and making inferences to fill out worlds.

The only situation I could see it being worthwhile erasing is if you accidently write something down you didn't mean too.

The conclusion is saying if you don't do comparisons you are most likely to be self-accepting and accepting of others. aka 51% chance you are self-accepting and accepting of others or alternatively 49% of being self-disparaging

The term most likely is just way to strong, because their could be some other factor that causes you to be self-disparaging and dismissive of other people upsetting these percent odds resulting in people always beingnsay 75% pre-disposed to being self-disparaging and dissmive even if they do not compare themselves with others.

The "likely"in this question had me second guessing but the other answers are just completely unsupported versus E being a bit supported lol.

I tried this for a bit and found it to be a bit of a time waster, as I already knew /was prepared to answer most questions if I got a good read on the passage.

@matthewcsorrels859 when you’re doing your random section do you insert it randomly into the test or just tag it onto the back end.

If the former, is it just a drill including all the questions from a random test section that you take in between sections? Or is there a way to build / randomize the unscored section in to prevent knowing it’s unscored?

C is proposing a world in which the only reason for not attacking another nation is because of military deterrence. While the prompt is only suggesting it is a reason potentially among many. Such as failing to attack because the other nation is an ally.

The conclusion in the prompt, and in ac A, limits itself to the three objects being anazlyed.

"only culture known to be from the surrounding area..." Doesn't exclude possibility of unknown culture being responsible for the inscriptions.

" of the three suspects in custody..." Doesn't exclude an unknown suspect from being the burgalar.

meanwhile C reaches out and excludes objects outside of the three objects it is analzying

"Nieves is the only person". This wording excludes not well known designers from potentially being the person who designed the Ultra 180.

Never write over the master game board.

Write a separate one if you need.

Sometimes it is most efficient is to just to make the inferences in your head

General consensus is too just focus on getting your reps in utilizing the passages from old exams. Focusing on comprehending the main points brought up in the core curriculum and being able to recall them without writing anything down.

Main point / type of passage, authors perspective, other perspectives, structure of the passage, and main conclusion.

However if you are long studying and you want to do some extra reading the general criteria I would recommend is to look for books/ articles that are:

Way outside your area of study

Use outdated / unfamiliar language.

Here’s a few books / concepts I found interesting while studying:

Economics:

Wealth of Nations by Adam smith

Das kapital by Karl Marx

Humanities:

The Republic by Plato

Meditations by Marcus Aurelius

Seemingly any text written by Nietzsche

Scientific theories:

Natural selection

Climate change

Biomagnification

Speciation

Predator/ prey dynamics

What Prions are.

Arts:

Colour theory

Critical theory

What Frescoes are (for some reason the lsat writers just love obsessing over them as if they were a gift from god.)

Focus on getting the first 10 done in 10 minutes or under. That should afford you enough time to get through all the questions with time to spare. If you don’t have time to spare, there’s an issue with how you’re selecting to skip questions.

Gosh using home and house so many times in a passage is exhausting. The trick to eliminating A and picking C is in recongizing the fact that sentence 1 is logically the opposite of what the conclusion is. Using the opposite rather than contrapositive is an common improper argument form in which we should recognize opposite statements have no logical relation.

House = U

Home = M

We can break the sentences into three statments

First sentence (the one asked about in the question): Being In M does not imply U

First sentence lawgic: M -> U or /U but not both

Second sentence: Being in U doesn not imply M

Second sentence Lawgic: U-> M or /M but not both

Conclusion Breaking down the translation in steps:

lawgic step 1: / (U->M). or alternatively "English"step 1. M is not required to be in U.

"English" step 2. Being in U does not imply M

lawgic step 2: U-> M or /M but not both

The conclusion is restating sentence 2.

Now going through answer choices

A) incorrect: The conclusion is saying If I'm in my house (U) I may or may not be at home (M). The first sentence does not affect this argument either way because It is describing the situation as: I'm at home(M) I may or may not be in my house (U).

Notice how the terms flip from U being at the beginning to M being at the beginning. This is an improper argument form of someone just saying the opposite statement and not a true contrapositive.

C) correct for the exact reasons above, the arguments have no bearing on another. I can be at home and in my house or not in my house. However I can also be in my house and in my home or not in my home

D (adding this in as well, as it was another common incorrect answer choice)) Nope there is no ambiguitity in the terminology used. They even go so far as to give examples of a house versus a home.

@wrosenbe358 said:

I was a little confused on why C is incorrect. The computer scientists simply say that they think they can make AI by encapsulating the information contained in the human genome. Then the Biologist talks about the operations of the human brain.

You're missing the conclusion of the argument in this description, which is that the biologist thinks that the computer scientists' beliefs are wrong in this particular instance. The statement the biologist makes in regards to the operation of the brain is a premise leading to this conclusion. (You need to assume the correct answer in order for the argument to flow properly.)

I interpreted this as sort of an analogy or something, as it doesn't say that the computer scientists are explicitly trying to model the AI after the human brain. Then, I said the NA should be that the computer scientists ARE trying to model the AI after the human brain (because if they weren't, the author's mentioning of human brain wouldn't apply).

Nowhere in the passage is the speaker trying to refute any explicit attempts of anything. They are trying to point out that a belief is incorrect. Mainly C is wrong because who cares if there is models based on alien brains. That's not what the biologist is trying to show.

The argument is kinda like the opposite of an argument by analogy

The argument the biologist makes is trying to show that the human brain, natural intelligence and what some computer scientists believe consitutes artifical intelligence is not the same. The biologists points out that the computer scientists are missing a component not encapsulated within human DNA.

Agreeing with what someone above mentioned. Questions on question pages can go unanswered for years. The ideal middle ground, at least for me, would be a “PT Questions” category in the forum or alternatively the ability to have tags on posts in the general category with which people can op in / opt out to seeing particular tags.

Based on the information of the passage there is nowhere you can infer that algae block pipes. It is stated that mussels block pipes, and that mussels eat algae. That doesn't mean algae can block pipes.

This by itself should be enough to pick E as an answer.

However E is right because it does this clever trick / pratical reasoning.

If the mussles are removing hazardous material from water, I think it is reasonable to assume they are somehow processing (transforming) or storing the hazardous material inside themselves.

i.e. It wouldn't make sense for them to be absorbing 10 grams of radioactive waste, letting it pass through their internal system and then releasing that same 10 grams of radioactive waste unprocessed or transformed. We wouldn't really call that removal, or least that doesn't seem to be how the paragraph is intending the use of that term.

E. Is saying essentially, if they aren't transforming these dangerous chemicals in any way, then they must be storing them in their original dangerous form, and therefore the mussels must then be treated as hazardous waste.

Which doesn't seem like a crazy leap in logic considering they are storing / building up this hazardous waste inside themselves.

You can't assume that giving exposure in general automatically leads to influencing how the mainstream media portrays women.

analgous example would be:

A scientist publishes a paper on why the flat earth theory, a theory often neglected by mainstream science community, is great.

We can't automatically assume just because this paper was published it is going to influence how the mainstream science community is going to think.

Your explanation for Answer choice C is spot on all non-mandatory headlight users are careful drivers, explains pretty easily why they are less likely to get in a collision, and why forcing other people to use headlights doesn't affect the overall numbers.

Answer choice E could be pointed out as incorrect for a few reasons, but here is what I think the main reason is:

We need to marry the idea that drivers with headlights on are less likely to be involved in a collision that driver's who only use them in , and that forced headlight laws (FHL) don't affect the overall numbers.

Answer Choice E does a great job trying to explain why the FHL don't impact the overall collision numbers, but it does an abosulely horrible job explaining why individuals with headlights are less likely to be hit if there lights are on all the time.

I think there is couple things that might have made this answer choice attractive from your statement above:

Misinterpretation of the text

"If a place used to only require headlights be turned on in poor visibility" Laws conditional on the visibility is not mentioned in the passage. The only thing mentioned is that people with their lights on 100% of the time, are less likely to crash than those with them only on during poor visibility. Additonally unconditional headlight laws are mentioned.

Translating logic errors

Frequently = sometimes. If there is a tornado one in every 100 days, that would be pretty frequent. If a extiction event meteor struck earth every 5,000 years. That would be pretty frequent.

Missing keywords / minor assumptions

daytime visibility, completly ignores nightime visibility

amount of driver's / amount of driving in the areas remains constant

My adivice for diagnosing this: -5 on each section would normally get you to around mid-low 160. I'd would look through your pt's and see if you're later sections tend to be worse than your earlier sections. That might give you more of sense if its a fatigue thing or just a general anxiety thing. Additionally I would give yourself a day between the test and blind review so you can see how much can be chalked up to lack of understanding.

My general reccomendation for improving this is going to be the mostly the same that other people say, get the reps in, improve your understanding, etc. However, one particular trick I had / stole from someone else, is to double the size of my drills. Instead of doing 4 games / passages back to back, I do 8 games/passages back to back shooting for the target time. This is purely to build that endurance up.

Best of luck!

Basically the Passage doesn't imply that algae blocks the pipes, It only states that the mussels filter hazardous material.

To give an analogy:

There is a local group of cats. These cats when left to naturally lounge around the entrance of a hospital they block the doorway. These cats are really good at eating rats.

In this hospital there is currently experiments going on in which crazy 100% infectious cat diseases are being implanted in mice.

Yet, when I tie up these cats at the exit of the hospital they are super good of killing and consuming these experiemental mice, preventing the escape of most the experimental mice into the larger world. They also tend to hunt down any rats that might be exiting the hospital.

Which statement seems the most supported:

A) the Rats are going to block the entrance door. if not eaten by the cats.

B ) if a cat eats one of these crazy experimental disease mice, and has no way becoming cured of aformentioned disease, that cat should be considered as infected.

Starting off with the prompt I broke it down into three key pieces.

PS= Political stability

F = The fiction that laws are embodying the intention of the authors

I = illusion that laws are bequest of a long tradition rather than preferences of contemporary politicians

Reading the prompt we know that

The illusion is necessary for Politcal stability : PS -> I

and with know that The fiction is necessary for the illusion: I -> F

(they give this argument in a really obscured way but it essentially breaks down to this)

So we combined these two statements together and get:

PS -> I -> F

or the contrapositive

/F -> /I -> /PS

A ) incorrect, uses the term poltical leaders when it should be founders

B ) Correct: is essentially saying: when /F then/PS (/F -> /PS)

C) incorrect: Topic shifts with them stem being about intrepretation and use of the constitution while this answer choice is about beliefs

D) incorrect: has the wrong intpretation of F. This answer choice is saying is that a written consitution preserves the Illusion. But thats not what the prompt is saying. The prompt is saying "the Fiction that a consitution is being intrepretted in line with the authors intentions" is what preserves the illusion.

E) incorrect: off topic "perceived lack of legal tradition"?

Hopefully this helps

Cheers

I used to do this but had trouble doing it in an efficient manner (It felt as though I was coloring rather than reading) I then switched to just highlighting certain key words (all the same color) and spending more time to comprehending / remebering the passage so that I didn't have to look back at any of the following topics.

Authors opinion

Main conclusion

Other viewpoints

Passage Structure

Purpose of the passage.

The first three are all things that should be easily highlight-able, the last two may not be clear until the end of the passage.

Legal scholars - shift to an "age of collectivism" from freeom, which happened / was happening when these laws come to exist

Labour scholars - Sees resistance to these laws fromm middle class women (the "elite") as selfish.

First paragraph seems to best support A.

That's why I picked it at least, super tough passage in general

You have to be careful with the questions that are being asked.

For the first group, the question being asked is have you ever awaken paralzyed with the sense of a strange presence in the room?

For the control group they are being asked, Have you ever awaken paralyzed?

Answer choice B is wrong because its making an inference that is unsupported. It's very possible that every single person in the control group has awoken with a sense of strange presence in their room, however they may not have felt seemingly paralyzed when this occured.

If the answer choice said something along the lines of "The percentage of the first group who have awoken seemingly paralyzed is greater than in the control group." Then answer choice B would be a supported statement.

Answer choice E is correct, because, assuming the groups are representiative, it is extremely weird for the group to have 40% feeling awoken seemingly paralyzed + sense of strange presence, when in the control only 14% of people wake up seemingly paralyzed.

It would be like me doing a study and finding that 30% of all people have struggled with sleeping before, whilst also simultaneously finding that 70% of all people have struggled with sleeping before due to giant clowns. These two numbers seem to be at odds with one another because the percentage of people who have struggled to sleep before, should include all people who struggled with sleeping due to giant clowns. Therefore the percentage of people who struggle with sleeping should always be higher, or equal to, the percentage of people who struggle with sleep due to giant clowns.

E is the only answer choice that explains these weird results and overall some slight tweaks to the wrong answer choices / stimulus could have made this a RRE question.

Context is the first two sentences.

Main conclusion: Their decision is foolish

then goes on to explain why their decision is foolish (which are premises supporting why the decision is foolish) specfically mentioned they should have revealed after they were hired.

Answer choice is C: Because it's simply restating what the author has already said in different words and it is what the information that the other provides is building towards.

E is wrong mainly for the fact that it is an assumption that the author makes, but is certainly not the main conclusion of the argument.

Essentially for this question you see the author give an opinion on situation, and he then goes on to justify that opinion. Therefore the opinion is the is the conclusion.