Hey All,

I am scoring 10+ points more on PTs that I have already taken 2 months ago ...I don't think I remember the answers as its been some time since I looked at these but I am wondering if anyone else is experiencing this...I am not sure how telling it is and how accurate retaking PTs can be. The only difference is that I already have a satisfactory LSAT score and I am taking these PTs with less anxiety but if I plan to take another LSAT in December I am not sure if this means i have skewed scores or it finally clicked.

Let me know if anyone else has experienced something similar. Thanks!

So everyone, our first meeting is the day after tomorrow / Saturday the 14th at 9 PST, 10 MST, 11CST, & 12 EST. Sorry, I know that's confusing but it's the same time; since we all live in different regions, I just want everyone to be on the same page. Please try to have PT 37 done so we can all move forward together. If interested, please send me your Skype handle so I can add you to the group.

So I recently took RC 67 and I saw a relatively large drop in RC score. While I admit that I have paid less focus to RC and this was the first test I really implemented 7Sage/Trainer strategies in my approach, and this may have slowed me down, I also think this set was relatively more difficult. I found myself bogged down in the first few passages and didn't get to the fourth at all, something I haven't done since my diagnostic. Passage 3 was difficult for me and had only 5 questions while Passage 4 had 8 questions that would have been relatively easy points upon my BR.

So my question to you all is, have you found any benefit in skipping around passages and putting some early work into those with the most questions?

Hello, I took the LSAT twice already so I really need help to understand if I should take the Dec 2015 test or Feb 2016 test for Fall 2016 entry into law school. I cancelled my first score, and my second score is in the mid 150s. I really need a 167 to get into my top choice. I've been studying everyday for the last month but I still feel unprepared. I've been scoring 162-164 on my PT exams, with 167-170s on my BR. I noticed that on the test day, I had to reread many stims and paragraphs, which delayed me significantly. I am trying to get better at that.

I have 18 more days of prep left for the Dec. 2015 test, which I am registered for. Please let me know if you have any tips for how I can achieve at least a 167 on the test day and if you think I should take the Feb 2016 exam instead. I also plan on applying ED to the school because I do not plan on taking financial aid.

I appreciate your help during these very stressful times!

Just curious how all the really experienced PTers are logging your retakes of PTs? Are you scoring them in the system just like you do others. I started taking a PT this morning that I didn't realize I had taken before until I got about 5 questions completed & for some reason I never logged my original test, so I have no idea how I did not it before. It was most likely before I started on the 7Sage curriculum, after I got my LSAT Actual Preptest books. I'm concerned about logging it into the system, since it may actually skew my averages because I'm noticing some familiarity with the questions and answer choices.

Hello fellow 7sagers,

I'm trying to decide whether to sit out another cycle. I'm blind reviewing in the 170s, but I can't seem to get my actual score up from the low 160s. I've gone through JY's course twice, the LSAT Trainer, and Manhattan RC. My brain often turns to mush on the harder, convoluted questions under intense timing conditions. I started taking timed PTs around mid October but can't seem to get over this anxiety. I've taken about 10 PTs. Clean copy BR each time. I really need advice on how to get over my timing issues. LG is my strongest section. The timing issues only affect me with RC and LR.

I'm considering postponing until February, but I know applying that late in the cycle would severely hurt my chances at getting accepted to high ranked schools with a scholarship, as most of the seats and scholarship money will be gone by then.

I've been studying 5+ hours everyday (8+ on the weekends) and work full-time. I've been at this since late August, so I fear I'm risking burnout. It would be extremely painful to have to keep pushing through until February, but I know the golden rule is "Don't take the LSAT until you are 100% ready." :(

Things to consider:

- Very scared I won't have new stuff to work with if I sit out another cycle. Only about 30 fresh PTs left.

- Aiming for 165+

Do you guys find your elminating skills getting better by doin it constantly? I haven't devoted my time solely to it, but I'm willing to try anything to improve my score. It seems when I eliminate, I can only elminate two at most. So I'm wondering if i eliminate it more, does it become easier to do?

I'm just getting started with this and I would like to know what is the difference between the Law, Humanities, Social Science and Natural Science passages, especially if the sole purpose ti for structure and reasoning. Is it important to make a distinction between them, if so why? Is there a difference between the types of questions asked, if so why? Is there a difference in the type of reading or style per passage. The test is not suppose to favor any particular major, however, the jargon and background knowledge makes it difficult and seems to favor or reward those in certain fields of study. For example, I would expect a criminal justice major to do well on the law passage, a biology major to breeze through the science passage, and an english major to thoroughly enjoy the literature humanities passage. Please comment. I need all the help and the advice I can get. Thank you

Hi everyone, I posted a couple days ago saying I would do a write up of my study experience, and here it is. For context, I scored a 180 on the October LSAT after nine months of studying. I didn’t think it would be quite so difficult to recall everything, but I suppose part of me is trying to block it out. I’ve separated this beast into a few sections in case people feel like jumping to a section, but in writing it I got the feeling responding to individual scenarios/questions might both be easier for me than trying a one size fits all and more helpful to you, so for the next week or so I’ll try to respond to any personal messages/questions. I’ll be around for a week or so after this, at which point I’ll be retiring from the LSAT for the foreseeable future.

I tried to address everyone’s wishes in here, but I’m mentally fatigued from work (it doesn’t end with the lsat I guess) so let me know if I forgot something! I never took a cold test but after the powerscore books and before the 7sage course I took the 7sage diagnostic and scored a 167. Also, I know people asked about my approach to the sections and I tried to outline them below, but a lot of that just came from instinct and not from a method. What will be more helpful I hope is my experience with mental fatigue and dips. I also would heavily emphasize planning and organization to avoid needing to cram work in. Cramming is death.

Also, the fact that I got a 180 means I did really well on the LSAT. It doesn’t mean I’ll make an excellent lawyer, that I’m a genius, or anything outside of the world of admissions. Through personal experience I know a woman who got a 158 on the LSAT and is an incredible trial attorney. Just for some perspective for those stressing. Strive for the best score you can, but don’t think it determines your entire future. A 180 also does not make me an expert on everything. All of this is only my thoughts, experiences, and beliefs. They aren’t a rigid guide or what you must absolutely do (except restricting the number of PTs). You know what works for you. Just experiment first to find your optimal approach.

For my final last minute addition, when planning plan for a minimum of six months. You cannot guarantee reaching your max in less. At the same time, I wouldn't do more than 8 or 9 months. I'd say an optimal schedule would be to plan on 30, 2 per week. Count back the weeks, so about 15 weeks, plus one for a break. Give another 15 weeks for studying the material. Probably more than you'll need but you can always take a break or explore a bit. That'd be about 7 months, as an example.

Overview

I began studying for the LSAT in February 2015, intending to take the June LSAT. I began with the Powerscore Bibles, doing a couple chapters of each book a week. While I found their techniques to be overly complicated and not very useful for me, there were some ideas that were beneficial, and I found them especially good for hammering in the basics and formal/conditional logic. I’d recommend them if you have plenty of time before your LSAT, to lay the foundations for the 7sage course. Do the drills, not the practice questions. Save those for 7sage. Plus while I generally found 7sage’s techniques more useful, perhaps you’ll take away more from the Powerscore approach than I did.

Starting 7sage in March, I began to get more serious about my studying. I altered my schedule completely, going to sleep at 12 and waking up at 8 almost every day. I set aside 3 hours each day for 7sage, completing the course and all of the practice sets by mid April. I then planned for taking four practice tests a week until the test itself in June, totaling 28. I started well with improvement from 170 to a high of 174 over three tests, then fluctuated between 170-172 over the next ten or so. I became increasingly frustrated and stressed, not understanding exactly what was going on. I didn’t feel that I was doing too much or that I was mentally tired, but I made mistakes that I found easily when going back over tests. I also barely BR’d, just wanting to speed to see what my score was. With June approaching, I decided to postpone until October, feeling that I had so much more room to improve.

Now saddled with almost too much time, I re-evaluated my schedule. Since I would be graduating, I would soon be free from my student job, school, and extracurriculars. I decided to cut my PTs down to three per week for July and August, then 2 per for September., totaling 33 tests. Since I had taken 13 of the earlier tests, but one new one would be available, there would be a few tests of overlap but I figured retaking those would be a good way to ease back in. However, I took the last two weeks of April and the first two of June to relax, studying only one day a week on Mondays by going over my weak spots in LR in 7sage, basically just to keep it in my mind but also shoring up my fundamentals. The last two weeks of June I basically went through the 7sage course again minus the problem sets, taking handwritten notes on approaches and tactics. The act of writing it helped cement it in my mind.

My approach to studying now was rigid and disciplined. My daily approach I’ll go into more detail below so people can skip to it if they wish but I began to adopt a more serious method. I also began meditating to improve my ability to focus. My first test after my “reset” I scored a 176, a new high. I then got a 177, then 179, then 180. My review, my new approach and mindset, and my patience with BR all helped me improve. I maintained my scores in the high 170s for the next month, taking three a week. However, by the end of August, I began experiencing the same mental fatigue I’d felt when I was taking four a week in April.

This time I realized the issue, and cut back to two tests a week immediately. However, I kept studying on between days, with breaks only on Fridays. I couldn’t accept that studying less might be the key to doing better. Stress mounting, my scores lowered to 173-175 range. I eventually accepted that additional practice sets and games could not possibly prepare me more, and cut back to two tests and nothing else. I realized stress would only hurt, and decided to just enjoy the rest of my time and cut out as much stress as possible. With two weeks to go and three PTs left, I got a 177 on my Wednesday test, then a 179 on my Monday. I decided to skip the Wednesday, figuring the rest would be better and I didn’t want a freak poor day on the most recent test to tank my confidence.

They don’t give the test in my town, so I booked a hotel 5 minutes from LMU for the Thursday and Friday before so I’d have some time to acclimate. The night before, I slept horribly. I didn’t feel nervous, but I kept thinking about how important it was for me to sleep, which made it impossible to sleep. Eventually I drifted off. I then woke up, ate my breakfast, and went to the test center. I was sent in to the first room, where I had a large desk. We started early, which was a huge advantage since during the break there was no line for the bathroom and I had less time for nerves to sink in.

During the test, I had to do some breathing techniques to calm down. When we started, I tore through that first LR section. I finished the section in 20 minutes flat. I checked every question, corrected one, then sat and waited for the next. RC. Great. My weakest section because I would always lose focus during one of the passages. This time, I focused no problem and finished with a minute to spare. Next I had what would be the experimental LG. Super easy, done in twenty minutes. Then the break. I felt excellent, and beyond excited to be so close to finished with the LSAT. I came back in, finished the more difficult LR without a hitch, then turned to the last section, another LG. I came dangerously close to blowing it here. The whole time I kept thinking the questions were a bit off so it was probably the experimental. I finished with time to check my work, but found I had truly made a mess of question three. I fixed all of the questions but one, which I managed to eliminate two of the answers then blindly circled in E, by some miracle getting my guess right. And that’s how I got a 180 instead of a 179.

Study Approach

While I was doing the 7sage course, I broke up my studying into smaller 30 minute chunks with plenty of breaks, giving my mind time to soak in the information. I made sure to do three hours a day though. For July through test day, I woke up at 6:45 and went to sleep at 10:30 every night without fail. I meditated for 15 minutes every day from 5-5:15. On test days, I woke up, showered, ate breakfast/coffee, did a warmup, then simulated waiting for the test to start, then began the test between 8:30 and 9:30 to simulate possible variation. On non test days, I took it a bit easy but did a couple games and an LR section, sometimes throwing in an RC. I set aside Friday as a rest day, since I intended to do nothing the Friday before the actual test. I took tests on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday. During my PTs, I circled every question I was unsure about and followed the 7sage method. The keys to a good study approach to me are replicating whatever you will do on test day, and adopting a consistent sleep schedule. Sleep is crucial, and an easy way to improve the quality of it is consistent hours every day. When working through the course, designate one hour each week to plan your study hours for the entire week up to your designated hours. For example, I always set aside between 18-20 hours in 30-45 minute segments. Find aa time segment that works for you, but don’t try to study for three hours straight. The PTs are for training your mind’s strength, when you are learning the approaches and skills you need to be able to absorb it permanently, and there’s a limit to how much you can take at once. Lastly, re-evaluate your needs honestly. If with three weeks to go you feel you have room to improve, maybe you should take the extra months instead. If you feel you’re suffering from test fatigue, take a couple days immediately and scale back.

Mental Approach

The LSAT is a mental beast. I don’t mean in terms of the difficulty, that mental aspect is obvious. The less obvious one is the one that kills you just as surely but far more subtly. I’m talking test day nerves, long term stress, fatigue, negative attitudes. People who score 180s on their PT can tank test day because they didn’t mentally prepare for the actual test, and others get a test day boost by channeling their adrenaline. This is my advantage. I was a pitcher for years until I tore various ligaments in my shoulder, and learned all sorts of mental fortitude tricks and methods. When I sat down for the real LSAT, I felt nervous. Then I changed those nerves to adrenaline, breathing in and out in a pattern and viewing the next four hours as a battle that I was going to utterly dominate. The LSAT was my enemy, and I was going to crush it. I’d found my way to combat those nerved from years of sports. I recommend anyone starting to study go find a book on mental toughness (there are dozens of good ones about sports) and study up. Can’t hurt.

As far as long term mental issues. This approach will vary hugely from person to person, on temperament and what else you have in your life. Most important is to avoid test fatigue. DO NOT TAKE MORE THAN THREE TESTS A WEEK. Maybe, maybe if you’re two months away and want to nail down your routine for each section take more, but scale back asap. If you feel fatigue, take a break. Do nothing mentally fatiguing for a couple days. Then reevaluate what you really need to do and how much you can handle. The LSAT feeds into my greatest strengths of logic, reasoning, and reading. I experienced test fatigue. It’s nothing to be ashamed of, it doesn’t mean you aren’t as mentally strong as the people at TLS pretending to take a PT a day, it means you need to step away. I did, and I got a 180. So if that helps you take a break, tell yourself that. I studied for nine months, about a month too long for me. By the end I was so sick of the lsat, I never wanted to think about it again. Even with all my breaks and stress relief, it weighs on you over time.

Also, test fatigue isn’t limited to tests. Any sort of studying fatigues you, as does reading, writing, or any mentally demanding activity. This was hard for me to accept, since I read all the time, but you may just have to go for walks or watch tv instead to rest your mind. Again, evaluate this for yourself, but when I stopped reading my RC score jumped a question or two since I wasn’t glossing over words anymore. If you read too much you read too quickly or carelessly.

Lastly, I cannot recommend two activities enough: meditation and exercise. Download a meditation app and just spend 15 minutes sitting or lying down clearing your head. It’ll help. Spend an hour a day four days a week doing serious exercise, it’ll help your brain be active without fatiguing and it’ll give you more energy, plus everyone should exercise for the myriad of health benefits anyways. So now’s your chance to start!

Individual Sections

LR

For LR questions I did not generally note anything or write anything, with the exception of the most difficult parallel reasoning or disagree questions. I found I didn’t need to. I would read the stem, then the stim, then the stem, then go through the questions and eliminate those I could, then weigh those remaining. If I couldn’t come to a 100% solution, I’d circle what I was leaning towards, circle the question, and move on. I aimed to finish 10 by 10 minutes, 20 by 20 minutes, and the section by 30, leaving 5 minutes to review those few questions I’d circle. LR was the section I was most affected by test fatigue with, but otherwise I usually missed one or none, occasionally two.

LG

My approach to LG probably will not be great for most of you. I would write each rule, including the contrapositive when appropriate, and make a quick number of inferences. If there were many questions that seemed to be scenario or inference based, I would spend more time on that initial inference step. Otherwise I moved on through the question. If I was wrong, I often could work through the inferences required quickly enough to not lose much time when I skipped the initial setup of game boards or alternatives. Essentially I went with my gut feeling on a given game, which is frustratingly hard to describe but the truth.

The most important part of any approach to Logic Games is mental flexibility. Every game is unique in some way, but the good news is every game you practice on helps you see another possible scenario and gives you a framework for approaching future problems. Lastly, find your system. I didn’t use strictly the 7sage or Powerscore methods/notation, I created my own bastardized system that worked best for me because I made it. It didn’t work or make sense to anyone else, but it was for me, not them. Experiment and find your system, and don’t worry about being able to explain it. Just make sure it’s clear to you, useful, and flexible.

RC

RC was my least improved section, going from average of -3 to -2 by the end, although I got a perfect on test day. This is where the ability to channel nerves into focused energy on test day is so crucial. Normally I would glaze over for at least one passage, but on test day I was uber focused and sailed through.

RC is also where you really, really, really need to develop your own approach. Everyone reads differently and will find different things helpful. For me, it was scribbling while reading. Not summarizing, but writing in-between the text and the questions as I read. Rewriting words, paraphrasing sentences, all of it just kept me engaged and slowed me down a tad so I didn’t race through. I didn’t read my writing during the questions, but it helped cement in place where things were in the passage. Basically I took the 7sage method and tweaked it to fit me. Find your tweak, it’s what the practice sets are for.

Test Day

If you’ve been simulating test day each PT for 2 months, you’ve nothing to worry about. It’s just another test. You’ll be nervous, but you’ll be fine. Everyone is nervous. Use it. There’s an excellent Dr Who scene talking about fear as a superpower because of how much it pumps you up and increases your physical abilities. Nervousness can do the same for you. Just wake up, eat your breakfast, and take the test. Follow the same methods you’ve used before. Know that if you make a mistake, you can retake it.

And that’s it. I wish I could be more specific about my month by month process but to be honest when I was working through the course was 7-9 months ago. I can tell you to do alllllll the practice sets, every LG, and plan everything. Plan when you’ll take your first test through when you’ll take your last. Plan your weekly hours, your breaks, your meditation, your workouts, and do everything else AROUND THAT. This is the most important thing for the next few months. Organization is very important, since when you get into the studying you’ll be stressed. Do everything you can to remove possible stressors. Give yourself leeway in your schedule for breaks when you experience fatigue. It won’t hurt. You won’t forget everything with a few days or a week away. My scores always improved after a break.

Best of luck to everyone! Bring two watches and lots of pencils on test day, because I had a watch die in the middle of a PT, but had it been the test I would have been lost. I'm sorry if there are any errors, this grew longer than I expected. Oops.

I was hoping to find a search function so I didn't have to start a new discussion, but I couldn't find one. Anyway, I was looking at the different course subscriptions, and there was a line where the description went from "easiest problem sets" to "easy" to "easy and medium" then "easy, medium, and hard." What exactly are "problem sets?"

quick, whats the rule of thumb as to which you should use?

Hi all, I'm trying to better understand Flaw-Descriptive Weakening Questions and this one stumped me. After listening to the explanation, I better understand why AC C is correct. However, I am wondering if AC C would still hold up if the wording was changed to "neglects the possibility that there might be widespread disagreement among connoisseurs.." instead of "neglects the possibility that there may be widespread agreement among connoisseurs.."

Any thoughts/clarification/tips would be greatly appreciated on this question?

As I am spending most of my time working on recent PTs for the December test, I have been solving some of old LR questions as well (I would consider PT 1-30 old).

After working on both, I think a conspicuous difference between old and newer ones is that old LR questions are not as tightly worded as new ones. I feel like old ones are cruder while newer ones are more refined in terms of their writing styles.

Assuming there are differences, I don't think they are about different flaws or different assumptions but more about different writing styles. I don't know if this is just me but I definitely spend more time reading/understanding old LR questions' stimuli than those of newer ones.

Do you guys think that there are any differences between old LR questions and newer ones? I would love to hear your opinions about this :D Thank you!

Hi all. I am looking for some input on a realistic timeline to prepare for the LSAT. I am currently active duty Army with about 8.5 months until I start ETS leave and transition into a full time student. Currently I attend a university part time near my post so that is added in along with my full time job. I will have approximately two years of college left once I exit the military. I see this upcoming period to be my best chance to focus on the LSAT and would like to aim to take the LSAT June 2016 or September 2016 if that is more realistic.

My work schedule is the normal military schedule with my day ending around 1700. I have my own office to spend breakfast and lunch break studying which could add about 1.5 to 2 hours of study time throughout the day. Along with this I will have a few classes but nothing too hard or time consuming and after February I will not have any classes at all to worry about. However classes are accelerated.

I am contemplating purchasing the Premium, giving myself right at 6 months of study time to nail concepts and take as many PTs as possible. Then if I am not averaging 170+ over the last 10 PTs look at extending and aiming for September. I already have paper copies of 17-38 and 52-71.

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

December LSAT is LESS than a month away. AAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

Don’t go it alone! Group BR! :)

Wednesday, Nov. 11th at 8PM ET: PT 70

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

Friday, Nov. 13th at 8PM ET: PT B

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

LSATurday, Nov 14th at 8PM ET: PT71

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

MONDAY, November 16th at 11AM ET: PT53

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

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

Note:

I really don't like any of these answer choice, but I was pretty confident when I eliminated D. Can someone explain how D resolves the paradox? In my mind, it makes it weirder.

Right after the war, the area that had been subject to oil fires and oil spills had less contamination than prewar surveys indicated. The surveys also indicated that PAHs were low compared to those in more temperate oil producing areas.

What I am looking for: If the land had been contaminated with all of this bad stuff during the war, then how was their less contamination after the war than before? Maybe the survey was wrong? Maybe some people cleaned up the land?

Answer A: Who cares about the effects. We want to know how there was more contamination.

Answer B: I think this makes the paradox weirder. Shouldn't there have been more PAH compared to that in temperate regions?

Answer C: This is what I chose, but I didn't like it all that much. Even if this is true, this explains why PAHs were low compared to temperate regions, but it doesn't explain anything about before the war levels and after the war levels. What if after the war levels of PAH were higher than before the war, but after the war levels were still lower than the Baltic Sea regions? It fits the facts and makes the paradox weirder.

Answer D: I felt 110% confident eliminating this one, and I can't figure out how this does anything but make the paradox weirder/do nothing. If peacetime oil production results in high levels of PAH and oil dumping, then this could mean two things: 1.) this answer choice is talking about the period of time after the war (which definitely does not help the paradox since we want to know why all of this bad stuff was lower than before the war) or 2.) this is talking about before the war. But if this latter case is what this answer choice is talking about, then wouldn't we need to have the relative contamination effects of oil dumping, oil fires, and oil spills? So yes, during the war, oil production declined (line 4), but a ton of bad contaminating things still happened. How is it OK to assume that the contaminating things in answer choice D (prior to the war) had a greater effect than the stuff that happened during the war? What if they actually had a lesser effect on the environment than the fires and spills during the war? This is a plausible occurrence, consistent with the facts in the passage and facts in the answer choice; this would make the paradox weirder, right? I used this same type of reasoning (coming up with a scenario consistent with the facts) to eliminate C.

Answer E: OK, but why was the contamination less after the war? Wouldn't this imply that the damage wasn't as bad as it could have been, but there was still an increase in damage?

I see why A, C,D, and E are incorrect, but I cannot figure out how B doesn't resolve the paradox. Here is the video explanation: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-4-question-26/

Smoking in bed is the main cause of home fires. Fewer people smoke now than did twenty years ago. But, the number of people killed in home fires hasn't declined.

What I am looking for: What if fewer people smoking decreased smoking related home fires, but another cause increased over that time? What if former smokers substitute smoking for playing with all of their extra matches? Also, there is a difference between people who smoke in bed and smokers in general.

Answer A: This is what I chose, but it is pretty subtle why it is wrong. This is suggesting that smoking related home fires aren't actually deadly, so it's actually not a paradox that the number of deaths didn't decline. It never was a big deal to begin with.

Answer B: If you see what A was doing, then this is the answer you are left with after POE, but I am really struggling to see how this doesn't resolve the paradox. JY is certainty correct in saying that this answer choice presents smoking in bed as a very risky thing: you might fall asleep when the fire starts and die. But, doesn't JY's explanation resolve the paradox? If smoking in bed is an inherently riskier activity, then doesn't it make sense that the number of deaths didn't decline?

Answer C: This definitely resolves the paradox. Just because there are fewer smokers doesn't mean that the right type of smoker has stopped smoking. What if none of those that are most susceptible for starting a fire didn't quit?

Answer D: This addresses the thing that I anticipated. What if another cause of fires increased?

Answer E: This definitely resolves the paradox. If there are more people living together, which can increase the cause of death, then sure, the there hasn't been a decrease in deaths.

On PT 58.1.13, we have one of the harder main point questions. I got this one correct, but I want to make sure I am understanding the passage correctly.

Does the phrase "it is a given" introduce a premise? Also, does "for such" introduce a premise?

EDIT: I got rid of the "always introduce" since there are probably exceptions. I am more wondering if they tend to introduce premises.

...for Group BR

MONDAY, November 16th at 11AM ET: PT53

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

Note: That 11 AM start time is EASTERN STANDARD TIME. So if you’re on the west coast, that’s an 8:00 AM.

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

Note:

I'm notice that doing the questions timed I tend to get them right but when I go back for the blind review I tend to get them wrong. Its like I look for reasons for my 1st answer choice to be wrong and then start to psych myself out and proceed to choose a different answer.

Hi All,

I recently reached out to an undergrad professor, with whom I had the closest relationship due to completing a scholarly research project my senior year. Here's the response:

"I could only write a very short letter stating that you were an outstanding undergraduate student who took courses from me more than seven years ago at a former university. I will not be able to speak to anything having to do with xxx law. "

I was bracing myself for the response. It's actually a little better than I initially expected, but...doesn't sound like it will help much?

I'm starting to think that it would be better to reach out to a grad prof, even though Admissions doesn't seem to think that grad school amounts to much? Otherwise, I might have to jump ship altogether and ask a previous supervisor in my industry. Two of the schools to which I'm applying do accept employer letters for non-traditional students. Do you think that this may be the "safer" route?

Any thoughts on the situation? I'm honestly not even sure how to respond to the person I quoted above. Thanks for taking the time to respond, but no thanks?

I was wondering how you would translate an embedded conditional if the conditional in the necessary condition is negated. For example, A--->[Not (B--->C)].

My best guess would be to say that it is A--->(B Some Not C), but I don't think that is a very helpful notation. Is there a way to make this is into an "easier" to visualize conditional chain?

EDIT: Added some brackets to make the embedded condition easier to see.

I don't really see how B is supported in the situation nor how D does not. Can someone evaluate my reasoning?

The question stem is pretty weird. My best guess is that this is a MSS question or a principle question. According to Google, proposition means "a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion."

Industrialists address problems by simplifying them. In farming, this tends to lead to oversimplification. To illustrate, industrialists think water retention and drainage are two independent/unrelated things. That isn't true. Thus, more farming farming problems are created than solved when industrialist get involved in farming.

What I am looking for: My best guess for a principle would be that farmers shouldn't listen to industrialists when they suggest things about farming issues.

Answer A: Most important? No.

Answer B: This is the correct answer choice, but I don't understand how the passage illustrates this proposition. Viewed in all of their complexity? Where is this idea in the passage?

Answer C: Anyone else? No.

Answer D: I I felt pretty good about this one during the exam, and I kept it during BR. Isn't this pretty much verbatim stated in the final sentence of the passage?

Answer E: This was difficult to eliminate, but it is too broad. We know that industrialists oversimplify things, but we only know that it creates problems in the realm of farming, not everything. Plus, you would have to assume that oversimplifying something is fundamentally flawed. Maybe it is or maybe it isn't.

Hey guys! So two of us were discussing this question on the BR call last night. I chose D, which is the correct answer, but I want confirmation for why E is wrong.

The question asks for a characteristic of "games that are intentionally commodified." The pertinent lines in the passage read: "By contrast, tax doctrine and policy counsel taxation of the sale of virtual items for real currency, and, in games that are intentionally commodified, even of in-world sales for virtual currency, regardless of whether the participant cashes out."

So we know we are looking for instances of in-world sales, or virtual to virtual, with perhaps the possibility of conversion into real money. With this we can eliminate A, which concerns real to virtual; B, which describes pure barter with no virtual currency component; and C, which does not directly address in-world trade.

I chose D because the first sentence of Passage B explains that a way in which some games encourage real-world trade in virtual items is by granting participants intellectual property rights in their creations. This aligns with the "intentional commodification" aspect.

But why is E wrong? It's talking about virtual to virtual, and I don't think it would be a stretch to assume that you could convert one of these currencies into real money. Currency conversion is, in a strict sense, a "sale," so converting one virtual currency into another would be an in-world sale. Is it because the passages never talk about different types or trade between virtual currency and as such this is new information? Or because the word "exchange" in answer choice E alludes to a barter rather than a sale?

I would appreciate anyone's help on this!

Help!! Can't do more than 16 LR Q with 80% accuracy. Tips?? I want to touch 20