Frustrating question.. The first line states "Mammals cannot digest cellulose and therefore can't directely obtain glucose from wood.."

I chose answer A, which states that "mammals obtain no benificial health effects from eating cellulose."

I understand the explanation for the other correct answer choice, HOWEVER in explaining why "A" is wrong, Jon says that "it may be the case that it (cellulose) strengthens their (mammals) teeth." This could be a plausible explanation, if the answer choice didn't read that mammals obtain no benificial health effects from "EATING" cellulose. How can you attain health benefits from eating something, but not being able to digest it?

Maybe if it read that Mammals received no beneifical health benefits from "chewing" cellulose I'd understand the strengthening of the teeth example cited, but it explicitly states that the mammal would be "eating cellulose." So can someone please explain how you could possibly receive health benefits from something you eat but can't digest..? I doubt the LSAC counts illicit drugs like shrooms to be of a health benefit. Thanks

Can someone please explain to me what the Cambridge packets are? I have seen them referenced in several posts on the discussion board and mentioned in the BR call I participated in. I went to the Cambridge site through a link provided on the call but couldn't find what was listed as a packet. I already have exams 19-75 I think, so not sure if it is just more copies of exams or a breakdown of question types etc... Thanks in advance.

Hi everyone-I consistently practice tested from 158-161 right before the Oct LSAT and somehow drastically bombed to a 152. I am quite upset. However, I feel like I did everything right-tons of practice test with full review, timed sections etc. It may have been test anxiety-who knows. How can I better prepare for Dec, assuming I have done everything right up this point and am just not performing when it counts most? Also, I have exhausted most of the recent preptests which may be problematic...

I don't understand how A is the principle. Here is my breakdown:

The use of space satellites to study the environment is important. Problems can be identified well in advance, so people can act early. It makes sense that environmentalists don't think about the fact that the satellites may harm the ozone layer and lead to serious environmental damage.

What I am looking for: The principle I thought the answer choice was going to say was "sometimes doing something that has some beneficial consequences can have so severe negative consequences that it warrants not doing the action."

Answer A: How is this the correct answer? I really don't like that it is talking about "people tend..." How do we know what people tend to do? The argument is only concerning itself with the environmentalists.

Answer B: This is what I originally answered, but I see why it's wrong. The author I think is arguing the opposite of this. The spaceflights are so bad that we should discontinue them. If this answer choice flipped the words "negative" and "positive," then I think this could be a right answer choice.

Answer C: What do we know about technology in general?

Answer D: Are we solving the problem? Were the satellites even well intentioned? What if the passage is describing an accidental positive consequence? Lastly, the passage is saying that a separate problem (ozone layer damage) is being made worse.

Answer E: Often? We don't know this. Also, were the consequences "unforeseen?" The author implies that the environmentalists are "failing to consider" the possibility of the damage; to me this implies that they are ignoring/discounting this effect.

Skype is not doing well. I have a pet theory that might work; it involves clicking a link for each individual conversation we’d like to join rather than having a regular group of 25 people in the conversation. It might reduce the needed bandwidth. But if that plan doesn’t work, we may need to change from Skype to Google Hangout. Please PM your Google Hangout email (a gmail account will do) to me. We’re working on trying to make this transition as painless as possible, but there may be snags here and there. Thanks for your patience.

Oh yeah, our little BR Group Family has grown:

Monday, Oct 26th at 11AM ET: PT50

Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/tLgIUSlQDEPg

Wednesday, Oct 28th at 8PM ET: PT66

Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/wGTZaVjudu5m

Friday, Oct 30th at 8PM ET: PT75

Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/qzGIJoSAyLJT

LSATurday, Oct 31st at 3PM ET: PT67

Click here to join this conversation: https://join.skype.com/tA67DTS6xgqW

Be sure to announce in the comments which group(s) you’re planning on attending.

Note:

Can someone explain how A is the correct answer? I got this question correct by POE, but during BR, I just can't figure out how A is explicitly correct.

Stats guy: Changes in the sun’s brightness correlate with land temperatures on Earth. Clearly, and contrary to what meteorologists think, the sun’s brightness is the main cause of land temperature.

Meteorologist: You are wrong, dude! Any professional meteorologist will tell you that climate is really complicated. There is no significant part that is controlled by one thing.

What I am looking for: The stats guy makes the typical causation/correlation flaw. Plus, even if the sun were to be a causal factor, the stats guy hasn’t given any evidence that the sun is the MAIN cause. The meteorologist is making an appeal to professionals, but it is actually pretty weird that he is doing this. The stats guy says that meteorologists can’t be trusted, so the meteorologist citing other meteorologists won’t do anything to convince the stat guy. I was expecting that the correct answer was going to talk about this idea (an irrelevant appeal to authority).

Answer A: This is it simply by POE. That’s really all I got because I don’t see the “specific case” nor the “invoking of a relevant generalization” in the meteorologist’s retort.

Answer B: What single counterexample? What generalization is false?

Answer C: I think this must be false. The meteorologist seems to be arguing the opposite of this idea: there is no single cause because climate is very complicated.

Answer D: Experimentally tested? He doesn’t bring this idea up.

Answer E: What unfavorable evidence? Systematically neglected? This just isn’t done.

Do the people here practice taking a PT in a noisy/distracting environment in order to prepare for the worst on test day? I noticed an almost 10 point drop from my average today when I took a PT in a noisy-ish setting today (some students felt the library was an appropriate setting to conduct a large group project). It's probably a waste of a fresh PT to ever try again in that sort of setting. At the same time though, it feels unrealistic to expect an absolutely silent administration on test day.

Having some trouble identifying when I should move on from a question. My current pace is not getting to around 2 problems per section. I am looking to hear what you guys/gals do so I can get some ideas.

This has probably already been hashed out somewhere, BUT, I can't find it, so...

Is there somewhere on 7sage (or elsewhere) that ranks the difficulty of all the PT's? - or maybe ranks the sections? It seems like I've see this somewhere before, but not sure where.

So for example, I just took PT 72 this evening. I want to know where this test ranks overall, and/or the difficulty of the sections. Was the RC on this PT considered, easy, hard, average etc? Was the LG section easy, hard, average?

I want to compare this information with what my feelings are about the tests, as well as use this info to make decisions about how to best spend my studying hours.

I'm hoping PT 72 is considered "hard" compared to other PTs, because I scored my highest score yet, and that would make me feel like I'm getting somewhere with all these hours and hours I spend studying. If it's "easy", then I won't put too much weight into the higher score.

I took the October 2015 and did not receive a score that I am satisfied with. I actually ended up getting the same lsat score as I did the first time. I registered for the December Lsat and this will be my 3rd time taking it.

For those who took the October exam and are retaking in December, what are some strategies you plan on implementing in order to raise your score? Being that essentialy we have one month to study, how many hours do you plan to study a week?

Lastly, I scored a 156 both times :(. I'm trying to be as realistic as possible and want your opinion as to whether or not I can raise my score to at least a 160 by December? Is that unrealistic?

Thank you so much in advance. :-)

Hi guys,

I've heard around that since it's Halloween people aren't planning to BR this Satruday night. Is anyone planning to attend the BR call on Friday then (for the Dec group, PT 75)? Let me know!

It’s BYOC (Bring Your Own Coffee)!!!! Are you ready to do the first ever Group BR in the AM? We’re making history here, people!

Monday, October 26th at 11AM ET: PT50

Note:

A tall tulip is not a tall plant. (eg. compare a tulip with an apple tree or pine)

no (only tall tulips) does not equal (only tall plants.)

It is not necessary to know for the question, but gorillas are very large, three times or more the size of a human, monkey or chimpanzee.

(C is correct). All the Gorillas are small, but it is flawed to saw that they would all be small primates.

[only small gorillas] does not equal [only small primates]

even a small gorilla is massive compared to a lemur or monkey.

E is the answer.

This conclusion is: CPUE number same -> shark numbers are same

To weakedn the conclusion, we need to establish that the way to reach CPUE somehow has changed since 1973.

This question defines the CPUE carefully.

E is the only answer that could address catches 'per hour' and the other answers are not relevant.

E: (Technology improvement -> sharks still easy to find EVEN THOUGH numbers have dropped -> maybe shark numbers not equal)

Hi, I was looking at PT27 and found out that question 17 in Game 3 seemed quite odd. The answer is "E" here but I did not understand why it is so. The question asks " which of the following must be true" and "E" i think is only "partially" correct... Although it is true that G and L gets to see different films, L and M COULD see the same film. Thus, it's wrong to say that G, L, and M do not all see the same film.

Any thoughts here??? Help me!

PT31.2.10 "Nothing that one should not have desired in the first place fails to be a pleasure"

If I shouldn't have desired it in the first place ----> it is a pleasure?

If I desire it in the first place-----> fails to be a pleasure?

Dear lord this is frustrating haha

I've been trying to find an answer to this question for a few days now. I know that all Ontario schools have an application deadline of November 1st, but does anybody know if this extends to supporting documentation (transcripts, LORs) as well? I phoned the admissions offices at Queen's and Ottawa to ask this very question, but my call hasn't been returned yet. I know schools like UBC have separate deadlines (Dec. 1st for application, January 31st I believe is the deadline for supporting documents), but I'm not sure if that's a policy that only some schools have that the Ontario schools do not share. Thanks!

Is there anyway to clear all your analytics without having to go through each?

This could be the day we move everyone over to Google Hangout.

Yesterday, we had some serious trouble with Skype. We’re hoping today won’t be a problem, but just in case, I’d advise everyone to set up their Google Hangout:https://support.google.com/hangouts/answer/2944865?hl=en

Saturday, October 24th at 8PM ET: PT65

Note:

I had some questions in regards to mental exhaustion and loss of focus.

During the test, I sometimes experience mind wandering off, especially during the difficult LR questions and Law and Science reading passages. The loss of focus forces me to read again and re-evaluate the argument, which has a detrimental snowball effect on my time management.

What are some of the methods that I can utilize to improve my concentration and reduce mental fatigue?

I have read some posts on 7Sage in regards to caffeine. So before taking a PT, I usually take 2-3 shots of espresso and eat some dark chocolate. I do some meditation as well. During the 15 minute break, I snack on almonds and walnuts (and other common brain foods).

I’ve also read that nicotine aids in memory retention and focus, so I may consider applying nicotine patches or start smoking, haha. (I wish I was joking…)

Most of my friends, who attend Law School now, tells me that my mental exhaustion during the test will get better as I get used to taking more full PTs.

In the case that I am not completely acclimated to the intensity of the test within couple of weeks, what are some methods that I can impose during my PT sessions which can improve my mental strength?

Best,

Hey all,

I purchased the budget course to try out the curriculum. So far it's been great, I'm even considering upgrading. Problem is for now I'm having a small issue with the Study Schedule, it seems convenient as it gives me a reference point to map out how much I would need to study.

But, with the budget option it gives me a bad estimate because it only takes in account the parts of the course available in the

budget option. Meaning maybe 1/4 of the total curriculum. Like I said, I'm considering upgrading but for now I'd like to make an estimate of how much I need to study.

I'm aiming at the 2016 June Test, possibly even next October. Study Schedule says I should be studying 6.5 hours a week. That's hardly enough to take and review 1 PT.

I was thinking 15-20 hours would be appropriate seeing as how I have all the way till June. Comments are appreciated.

During the exam, A just seemed right, but during BR, I am having a ton of time justifying it. I'd also like some further analysis on answer C.

The government increased the minimum wage. The minimum wage increases the museum's operating expenses, which now are less than the revenues (so the museum is profitable). Thus, the museum will either raise admission fees or decrease services; these hurt the museum going people.

What I am looking for: I couldn't think of a good necessary assumption. All I could think of was raising admission fees or decreasing services is bad for museum goers. I kept thinking to myself "no shit."

Answer A: I was turned off by this due to the word "significantly," but the other answer choices were clearly incorrect. If it is not true that some of the museum's employees are not paid significantly more than the minimum wage, then what does this mean? I take it to mean that the employees are either paid slightly higher than minimum wage, at minimum wage, or below minimum wage. How does this actually wreck the argument?

Answer B: What if the revenue fluctuated? It doesn't matter.

Answer C: I am sure some are, but so what? If you negate this: no one is paid more than the current minimum wage, then this might strengthen the argument since it would suggest that the increase in the minimum wage is going to impact the operating expenses further.

Answer D: So what about the annual number of visitors?

Answer E: So what?

EDIT: I initially mistyped the part of the summary dealing with profit.

Hi all, I just got back my Oct score yesterday, which turned out to be very disappointing157, 6 points below my average score, 163. I've never gotten below 162 on my PTs for the past two months, so this was devastating and unexpected. I don't know what happened, but I guess I was especially nervous during the first section, RC, on which I got almost half of the Qs wrong, twice as many as what I typically get. On LRs, I typically range between -7~-10 and I got -15 on the real one. Usually, when I do well on the RCs, I do poorly on the LRs and vice versa so it balances out. This time, it appears that I under-performed on almost all the sections. I'm considering to retake in Dec but with barely a month left to prep with full-time schooling, I'm afraid I will make the same mistake and get a similar result. Re-taking in February would be better because I graduate this December and I'll have two months to prep for the LSAT full-time at home. However, this would mean that I'll have to possibly wait a year and apply next cycle since my dream school fills almost all of its class before the February LSAT results are released. If I decide to apply next cycle, which I prefer not to, I'd like to save up my LSAT attempts and take the February and June exams.

My target score is 166, but anything more than 160 would guarantee my acceptance to all the schools except my top-choice school. I've never thought I'd get anything below 160 and looking at my score on the real one, I'm uncertain whether to see it as a true reflection of myself or just an outlier. Since I felt that I put in a decent amount of time and efforts into studying for this exam, I've never thought I'd be worried about not getting into any of the schools on my list. I spent the entire evening yesterday thinking about whether I have the capability to do well on a standardized exam or go to law school. My fellow classmate who spent much less time than me studying for the LSAT pulled off a 170 even though he said that he "bombed" it. It's quite discouraging to see that this entire process is slow and that I haven't seen much progress even in my PT score. It's really difficult to keep out the negative thoughts.

Sorry, if this post makes anyone feel uncomfortable. Any advice on how to tackle the issue and when to re-take would be appreciated.

PS - I took the 7sage ultimate course and studied with the Trainer book...

Are there LR videos here like the LG ones they have?

I don't see how D is incorrect. E is obviously correct, but how is D wrong?

Professor V's book is getting people riled up over the origins of glassblowing (really exciting stuff). If V is right, then there would be not enough evidence to conclude that glassblowing started in Egypt (which is what most historians think). This traditional view is still accepted by the majority of historians. If V is right, we must conclude that glassblowing started elsewhere.

Answer A: So what? This doesn't even describe a type of flaw to begin with.

Answer B: The argument isn't circular.

Answer C: We don't need the criteria.

Answer D: Doesn't the argument do this? Isn't what "most historians" claim (line 6) conflated with the "traditional view" in line 8? How is this not the flaw?

Answer E: This is definitely the flaw of the argument, but I can't figure out how it is better than D.