This explanation made sense with the analogy of the old man - it's not necessarily true in parallel that this blackwater surge was the strongest, but we're trying to prove that it is, in this case, that means proving out the the coral has not been heavily damage by prior blackwaters because if they were, it's very possible that this one was /not/ the strongest of the last two centuries.

Correctible error, foolishly chose C when D is clearly more accurate. "Hoped" is not nearly as parallel as the reasoning in D.

I was down to CDE here and could have nailed this one had I taken a minute to chain these up, fairly easy actually upon review. E is correct and flows from A to C in the chain.

I got this right on BR, not in the original. My mistake here was falling for C and neglecting originally that E explicitly mentions 'undermining' as the columnist clearly does here.

I was fooled by C, this is a tough one- the goal here should be to recognize D is right because you have to keep your eye on the ball as far as food producing capacity goes, the beginning says it's increasing, and the end suggests it'll change, as is communicated in D.

My thought process was solid here, it took me a minute but I did catch the fact that anarchy has 3 different definitions throughout the stimulus.

This is an unforced error, I should have caught the bit about 'as far as calorie intake goes' - A is not relevant, D MUST be true so that the donut doesn't jump up in caloric intake.

I initially got this one wrong while falling for the roundabout, wordy E that just misses the mark - at no point in the stim is 'not' teaching techniques discussed, C is the Occam's razor answer and clearly correct.

I seem to have gotten down to 2 answers here in C/D, and while I got it right originally i missed the BR and changed to D. My initial instinct was right. I was fooled the second time around and forgot to adhere to the not both, the D answer says the corporate attorney DOES rep the company, whereas the right answers say not the one, therefor the other.

I was fooled by language here and would have gotten it right if I paid closer attention to A and the high volume transaction double check wording. This was an unnecessary error.

Lowkey sounds like a fantastic idea -- thank you for all you do JY

@ said:

I would say a big fat yes on addenda for both. Cancer treatment is a darn good reason to see a gap in work as well as tank your LSAT score.

I think being honest about the effect that your illness has had will mitigate most red flags on your app, especially if you have managed to persevere in spite of it.

You could address this in your PS as well, but even so, a mention of how this effected your lsat and/or work history seems wholly appropriate.

Thanks so much for your response Sara, I really appreciate it. My PS definitely touches on the effect diagnosis and treatment had on me as it's been the focal point of my life for a year now. That puts me at ease, thanks so much again.

#help Not going to lie, I hate this question. Answer feels like a complete matter of opinion, I have no clue how you get a "should" here.

This is an interesting question that I got wrong for reasons of subtlety, and I believe it's well within my grasp to get right. I remember on the test actively striking out B after referencing the hiccups in the stimulus. I made an active note that this AC was in line with the stim, and stupidly struck it, forgetting that I was looking for the /not weaken/ which in this case was the choice that WAS in line with the stimulus. Correctable error!

Having fairly easily eliminated C D E, I was left with A and B and should have treated this like a principle question. I was fooled by the 'skilled practitioner' angle even though we DONT know what a skilled practitioner is or is not likely to do. The stim deals with beginners, which should have led the to B.

I know this isn't a tremendous amount of help, but be confident in knowing that you have great judgement, and that the skills are there, it's just a matter of timing. Keep at it, you've got this.

I'd say trust the process, and bet on yourself. Recognize that you're sharp and know you're capable of -0, -1,-2 performances, and that you might just be gripping the stick too tight. You'll be great come test day, know that.

This isn't a half bad lesson for me in terms of just trying to narrow it down - parallel language and elimination got me close, at least.

Spent a lot of time pouring over this, finally got that EFFICIENT is what makes and breaks this --