Thanks! Will be there!

The journey of a Byzantine lead seal:

1.stick to a document and wait for it to be opened (purpose) ---> 2.document opened (purpose served) ---> 3.seal recast (affirms conclusion)

a proper answer choice could support the flow of 1--->2--->3:

A supports 2, which leads to 3, thus confirms the conclusion (documents >>> seals)

B ignores "the purpose" and introduces a different reason directly leads to the conclusion

D # of important documents in the past does not have anything to do with the remaining seals

C&E are here for the head count

Sounds great, how should I sign up for this? I will sit for the Sept 2017 test, maybe even the Dec one.

Lawyer is one of the few professions I've heard that makes big money but doesn't necessarily require heavy math or hard science skills. Also, lawyers don't seem like they can be easily replaced by robots, so there will be one less thing to worry about in the foreseeable midlife crisis.

"The surest way to increase the overall correctness of the total set of one's beliefs" really hinders my ability to read, if we can just assume the optimal number of beliefs, this question will be easier to understand.

Let's assume everyone has 10 default beliefs in one's belief bag.

P: One needs at least 8 beliefs to survive.

P: The statisticians claim that the number of one's beliefs will only decrease or remain constant by taking out the incorrect ones.

(What implies here is the number of beliefs will eventually fall below 8 → hinders one's ability to survive)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C: The statisticians' claim must be mistaken.

The underlying assumption: The number of beliefs must not fall below 8 = must not hinder survival.

Awesome! Putting off RC lessons due to procrastination has finally paid off

You know, I first thought the title was "Jesus Christ - How did JY start teaching?" and I came in hoping to find something shocking.

Only "Harder"? well, I'll be damned.

I thought there were some technical issues when I saw this wild range of options

@ said:

I also really liked being able to see who picked what. Personally, I am very shy and sometimes it's intimidating to speak out so having others call me out helped me become more comfortable with speaking up. lol

I feel the same way! I'm scared of taking initiative...probably not gonna do litigation in the future...

Finished a Cheetos while staring at this question:

Premise:

If [intending to give pleasure--->truth] is true,

and

[popular(selling well)--->give pleasure] has been established,

then

[popular(selling well)--->give pleasure(=intending to give pleasure?)--->truth] happens,

but

[popular(selling well)--->give pleasure--->truth] is absurd,

(and we do not accept absurd statement).

Conclusion:

So

[intending to give pleasure--->truth] cannot be true.

The gap here is that the author equates [popular(sell well)--->give pleasure--->truth] to [popular(sell well)--->intending to give pleasure--->truth], so we need to equate these two concepts, which makes D correct.

For answer choice E, if the "no less expensive" means the taxi rides to local dealerships and national rental firms are the same, then isn't it actually strengthen the argument? Because the first sentence states "renting cars from dealerships is less expensive than renting cars from national rental firms", since the taxi fares are equal for local residents, local dealerships are of course more worthwhile. So the "no less expensive" cannot mean "as expensive or more" here, it can only mean "more expensive" to make E correct. ABCD indeed strengthen the argument, but I still wasn't sure about E, am I overthinking it or do I miss anything here?

I had one couple weeks ago that I was doing all those math problems during the LSAT test, I knew the test was for law schools, so I was trying to use conditional logic to solve some kind of trigonometric question, but I couldn't figure out anything. Then all of sudden everyone else in the room ordered KFC and just started eating, but none of them was for me because I was the only one still sweating over the test. It was horrible, like I haven't had that enough in high school. One of the reasons I think LSAT is better than other graduate school exams is because there's no math. LSAT really just brought out my biggest fears.

@ said:

If I were to construct Buzzfeed quiz results for sorting people into LSAT Hogwarts Houses:

Benefits of being a Slytherin:

Slytherin's are resourceful, cunning, and ambitious. In other words- nothing stands between a Slytherin and crushing the LSAT. More than likely, Slytherin's are proponents of "studying smarter." Since September is right around the corner, we could all use a little bit of that Slytherin strategic thinking!

Benefits of being a Hufflepuff:

Hufflepuff's are the glowing examples of hard work and patience. These traits make up the heart of an ironclad LSAT prep! Nothing gets you as far as grit my friends, not even talent. Also, Hufflepuff's have a unique penchant for fostering the most supportive study groups.

Benefits of being a Ravenclaw:

Approaching the LSAT with honed wisdom and a plethora of LSAT knowledge to draw from is the ideal situation for anyone on test day (Naming this group Ravenclaw 2.0 would break my heart though).

Benefits of being a Gryffindor:

So so so much of performance on test day comes down to faith in one's abilities. Gryffindor's are the last people to waste time with that self-doubt nonsense when they fully know what they are capable of otherwise. Taking charge of their own destinies (and studies), Gryffindor's will certainly let their true abilities shine through in spite of test-day nerves!

At the end of the day, whatever house we choose represent, let us try to emulate all the best Hogwarts House traits in preparation for the LSAT.

Wicked!

I'd like to find out if there's a correlation between law students and Ravenclaw, seems like more Ravenclaws here, I wonder if it applies universally. Maybe they share certain qualities together.

It would break my heart too if this group was named Ravenclaw 2.0, I fancy The Terminator more.

Using an analogy helps me figure out this one:

A number of studies have suggested that magic beans show similar levels of improvement within 3 days regardless of the kind of soil they are in. So any improvement of magic beans in 3 days must be the result of something common to all soils---for example, chicken turd.

Answer choice A is suggesting that the level of improvement measured by the study only concerned height, that all magic beans have reached 100 feet within 3 days in different type of soils; however, all levels of improvement actually constitutes a lot of factors, such as girth of the trees, number of leaves and strength of branches... so in fact, those magic beans may not show similar levels of improvement at all.

It's not a very rigorous analogy, but it helped me understand the structure, although now I'm kind of confused about whether answer choice A attacked the premise or the argument.

This question took me the longest time to figure out in the whole set. I quickly eliminated D probably because I had an internal bias that totalitarian regime wasn't so bad, and E looked better because it wasn't so extreme. It wouldn't have taken me this long if I had realized the LSAT was a democratic test. lol

@ said:

I am tagging those who I think are in different time zones:

@ @ @ @

Thanks for tagging me! I'm intereseted as well, it's so nice that @ is willing to do seperate session, I'll be there!

Hey, I found this new Harry Potter house sorting quiz (not the Pottermore one), apparently, it claimed itself to be more "rigorous" since it employed the Big Five personality traits and all that kind of crap, so I think it's gonna be fun for you guys to check it out, to see which house the members of our study group belong in, since we're "NOT So Ravenclaw."

Here's the link: http://time.com/4809884/harry-potter-house-sorting-hat-quiz/

It was made to celebrate the 20th anniversary, and there is also an interesting article about the results of each state, which says that people from the west coast are more Gryffindor than people from the east, who are more Slytherin, I guess that's not surprising.

@ said:

But why 666 is bad luck??? :neutral:

Hahaha, I was wondering the same thing when I saw his comment so I googled it, there were some pictures showed up that looked pretty ZhongEr/FeiZhuLiu, but it looks like 666 has something to do with religion, maybe it means a bibilical demon. That was new knowledge to me, so thanks @.

I think we're from the same country, judging by your last name, so I totally get your name, and this probably is a cultural thing, just like 7 is a good number in the western culture but not the case in China.

As for your sleeping pattern, I have the same issue as you do, and I've tried to adjust myself to "regular daytime routine", but it failed...multiple times throughout my life, maybe because I'm not a strong, determined person...but I do feel I'm more productive at night so I stop feeling guilty about it. You shouldn't worry too much about it if you feel you're more productive at night, and based on my own experience, on the test day, your body will know it's a big day and adjust itself to reach a proper degree of excitement, so you don't have a foggy brain (e.g. Remember the day before the field trip when you were in elementary school? Even though you have gone to bed really late because of excitement, you were still able to stay excited and wide awake on the next day). But again, it's just my experience, sometimes I give really bad advice, like this one, maybe. Don't trust me.

Lastly, if you suffer from insomnia, exercise helps, a 30-minute cardio workout of any kind can wake up your brain and bring you a sound sleep.

I'm so illiterate, I thought "err" was an exclamation that had no meaning.

LSAT world seems to have its own value system that the test writers sometimes expect us to assume the "right thing," ugh. On the other hand, maybe law schools just don't want to admit students who cannot correctly assume that "love should be divided equally among kids", now they're expecting us to know logic as well as parenting.wtf

@ said:

@ said:

@ said:

@ said:

Hey guys,

I just took the LSAT in Asia. I had two RC sections and I’m trying to identify which one was experimental.

Did any one of you who took the test in Asia have a passage on George Balanchine (baller choreographer)?

I also got two RCs, one had George Balanchine, a comparative passage about reductionist, Mayan civilization (was the US experimental also about drought?) and a female scientist whose name I couldn't remember (she specialized in variance or something); the other one had a law passage about formalism, Bebop jazz, a comparative passage about arbitration clause in business contract and polyester.

I did really bad in the second RC, especially for the Bebop jazz passage... if it's the real section, then my tears will revive the Mayan civilization.

Emmy noether should be the lady whose name you can't remember. And since Emmy noether and Mayan civilization were both experimental sections on the US exam.. I presume the other section with the bebop passage was the real one D:

I just realized that they used the exactly same test as the October makeup LSAT 2017 for the December LSAT in Asia:

https://forum.powerscore.com/lsat/viewtopic.php?t=15413

Guess that's why the LSAC people don't disclose the international tests, very economical

@ said:

@ said:

@ said:

Hey guys,

I just took the LSAT in Asia. I had two RC sections and I’m trying to identify which one was experimental.

Did any one of you who took the test in Asia have a passage on George Balanchine (baller choreographer)?

I also got two RCs, one had George Balanchine, a comparative passage about reductionist, Mayan civilization (was the US experimental also about drought?) and a female scientist whose name I couldn't remember (she specialized in variance or something); the other one had a law passage about formalism, Bebop jazz, a comparative passage about arbitration clause in business contract and polyester.

I did really bad in the second RC, especially for the Bebop jazz passage... if it's the real section, then my tears will revive the Mayan civilization.

Emmy noether should be the lady whose name you can't remember. And since Emmy noether and Mayan civilization were both experimental sections on the US exam.. I presume the other section with the bebop passage was the real one D:

Oh no... this is devastating, I totally bombed it, I guess I'll have to take this ungodly test again in February...

@ said:

Hey guys,

I just took the LSAT in Asia. I had two RC sections and I’m trying to identify which one was experimental.

Did any one of you who took the test in Asia have a passage on George Balanchine (baller choreographer)?

I also got two RCs, one had George Balanchine, a comparative passage about reductionist, Mayan civilization (was the US experimental also about drought?) and a female scientist whose name I couldn't remember (she specialized in variance or something); the other one had a law passage about formalism, Bebop jazz, a comparative passage about arbitration clause in business contract and polyester.

I did really bad in the second RC, especially for the Bebop jazz passage... if it's the real section, then my tears will revive the Mayan civilization.

Yeah, so excited, thanks Sami!