The example given on the cheat sheet states, No candy is bitter.

pick either idea and negate it right?

what about No candy? doesn't that mean candy is negated?

so instead of C arrow /B shouldn't it be /C arrow /B?

Hi everyone, I was just curious if anyone has taken the LSAT at the testing center in Cary, NC. NC ELITE CAREER SERVICE CENTER (10061)? If so could you tell me if the conditions were good? The setup, individual desks, good lighting, proctored well, and distraction free? Thank you

What do people consider the pros and cons of gap years? I've done some research on my own but was wondering what you sagers think, because I know we come from a variety of backgrounds.

Personally, I had always been anti-gap year because I've had over a year of internship experience with a law firm while in College. But now, being a senior, balancing LSAT studying with a full course load which includes my senior thesis is really piling on the stress. Plus December LSAT mixed with final exams sounds like a recipe for ultimate burnout.

Do people generally think gap years are the best move? On the one hand you can make $$ to put towards law school expenses, and can really focus on the LSAT. But on the flip side you start a year later and could lose some motivation.

All thoughts are appreciated!

How many times am I using the method on one passage? Is it 2? The first time I read the entire passage, go through all the steps, then the second time I read the passage again, go through all the steps the same way with the exception of end of the phase 1 where I spend 30 seconds on writing down what I believe to be the main conclusion for each paragraph?

.

I don't see how E is MSS supported. Can someone evaluate my reasoning?

Here was my diagram:

Opera singers with demanding roles at young age MOST lose voice early because they lack maturity/power.

Young singer with great vocal power MOST LIKELY ruin their voice

Young singer MOST lack technical training needed to avoid straining vocal chords-------->Truncated singing career.

What I was looking for: I didn't think any of the existential quantifier statements linked up (which I thought was weird), except the last one. The first statement talks about opera singers, then we go to young singers with great power (we don't know if they are opera singers), and then we go to young singers in general (we don't know if they are opera singers nor if they have great power). Thus, I was expecting an answer choice that just said that Most/Some young singers have truncated singing careers.

Answer A: We don't know about anyone lacking great vocal power.

Answer B: This is what I chose, but under the timed conditions, I rushed through it. Ruining a voice is only linked to young singers. We don't know if the young singers are opera singers.

Answer C: Only? The only necessary condition is truncated singing career. This answer choice doesn't mention this.

Answer D: Same as C. Maturity isn't a necessary condition anywhere.

Answer E: This is supposed to be the correct answer, but how? Straining vocal chords is a MOST relationship between young singers. The young singers may or may not be opera singers! What if there are 100 young singers and 51 strain their voice. But let's say that 49 other opera singers don't strain their voice! The only thing from the stimulus that we can conclude is that most young opera singers lose their voice early since they lack maturity/power. Where does the idea of "straining" link these ideas? To me, this answer has zero support.

I just began the prep test intensive part of the curriculum and I'm finding that mental endurance seems to be a major issue for me during the 3rd and 4th sections (regardless of type of section). Is this something that just gets better with practice or are there things you recommend doing as well?

...go to law school.

This includes alumni and current faculty in my region. They say that everything is way too saturated.

Besides the LSAT-takers and aspiring law school students, WHO these days is saying "go to law school?"

I took the October test and didn't feel so hot, so I'll be retaking in December.

I've worked through all of the PT from 35-72, and I'm kind of stuck as to what now?

My plan is to do 2 timed and BR PT/week. (I feel like I overwhelmed myself a bit last time b/c I was doing about 4-5 PT a week, but what do you guys feel about this number?)

RC is my weakest section time wise, so I'll be doing 1 section every day timed.

LR is my weakest section quality wise so I'll be doing 1-2 sections. 1 timed, 1 un-timed (depending on how much time I have)

LG I'm okay on, so I'll so 3 sections timed/week.

I felt like I was under so much stress all the way up until the test, so the first thing I did was give myself a week off! And now that I'm refreshed, it's time to focus and go for it again!

So, for those retaking, what are you guys doing to prep?

Sequence Games With A Twist

I Am Pretty Good At Making Inferences When I See Rules That I Am Accustomed To. However, Just About Every Game Introduces A New Concept That I Am Totally Oblivious To. Therefore, I Am Worried That When I Am Ready To Take The LSAT, Many Games Will Have Concepts I Have Never Seen Before.

Is It Safe To Say That Once I Make It Through All Of The Sequence Games With A Twist That I Have Seen Just About All Of The Tricks Of The Trade? This Way I Can Be Prepared?

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

*The kind of question this is:* Weakening

*Paraphrased question:*

Premises: One of the advantages of B.t. Toxins (BTTs) over Chemical insecticides (CI) results from specificity for pest insects. The BTTs have no detrimental effects on mammals or birds + limited range of activity of the BTTs toward insects means that often a particular BTT will kill pest species but not affect insects that prey upon the species.

Conclusion: This advantage makes BTTs preferable to chemical insecticides for use as components of insects pest management programs.

*What I am looking for:* Something that I didn't know about CIs that make them a better choice, or BTTs that make them a bad choice.

*Answer A:* No, This looks like it strengthens the argument by stating how CIs cause harm to a greater number of insect species than does BTTs. We don’t want to cause the ecosystem to collapse. That might kill off the balance of insects that are non-threatening.

*Answer B:* No, We only care about a particular pest insect and not if BTTs are effective on other insects.

*Answer C:* No. we are not concerned with weeds, and are concerned with only pest insects. Plus, this could strengthen the argument because BTT also doesn’t do damage to weeds, which means it another good thing BTT does.

*Answer D:* Yes, Insects (which includes pest insects) build resistance more readily to BTTs than to CIs.

*Answer E:* No, who cares birds and rodents often do greater damage to farm crops than do insects. This passage is only concerned with pest insects, so lets not let the LSAT writers trick us by adding things that are not in the passage.

I've taken about 9, and just recently started taking them every weekend (I work full time during the week), and I jumped a huge amount (14 points) but now I have kind of stopped making any better and i'm getting discouraged. I need about 10 more points to get where I want to be, but this weekend was the first time I have not raised my score (even if it was just a point or two) and I'm freaking out.

For those applying this cycle or are already in law school, what is your take on the personal statement length. The majority of the schools I'm applying to either doesn't list a specific length or says 2-4 pages max. With my current draft, I believe I could finish out at around 3 pages.

Hi friends, I'm having a hard time with conditional relationships chaining. I am not sure what course of action to take when there are two logical indicators, how can I be 100% certain that the one I chose isn't the redundant one? Also, I am not quite clear on how to link several concepts, I seem to freeze!

You guys just take one of the most difficult exams and you guys rock! How do you guys feel about it? Is there any section particularly difficult?

I have gone through several lessons tonight, however, when I check my syllabus, it does not show that I completed them. I clicked the next button at the end of each lesson until I was done with a section. So far, I can keep track of where I am but I am afraid once I get further, I will get confused as to what I have or haven't done.

Any reason this is not working? Thanks!

Does anyone know what PT this "never-before-disclosed" test is? I haven't done it yet, but afterwards I would like to go over the test explanations, but without knowing what PT # it is, that won't be possible. Thanks for any help!

Howdy y'all.

So I took the October LSAT last week and decided to take this week to go back to drill certain arguments while working on RC and LG as I usually do. However, when I took a timed arguments section today I got -11 (yikes), and after BR I didn't do significantly better (-9) as I usually BR around -4. I haven't taken more than 3 days off of LSAT since I first started studying back in May, because I'm afraid that if I take the recommended week off and then come back with a fresh mind, I'd be in a worse position.

I think I have become too attached to the LSAT and it's hard for me to leave it aside for a little while...help.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-1-question-05/

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

The kind of question this is: Weakening

Paraphrased question:

Premises: In North Atlantic, Codfish population declined as population of Harp seals increased from two mil to three mil, so there is blame on the seal for Codfish decline, but Cod plays a negligible role in Seal’s diet.

Conclusion: Therefore, it is unlikely seals are responsible for the decline of codfish.

What I am looking for: Something I didn’t know about the correlation between Cod decrease and seal increase. (broad lol).

Answer A: No, this doesn’t weaken the argument. It’s not about how people are inconvenienced about fish because of the seals, its about Cods and Seals.

Answer B: No, but sure, there could be a threat. But, there is no information saying that Codfish are dying from this so-called threat. And, what kind of threat is it anyways?

Answer C: No. Sure they capable enough to thrive in water that cod can’t swim in, but that doesn’t mean they can only live in that type of water. They can swim to warmer water to catch cod if they wanted to.

Answer D: Yes, because if Cod feed almost exclusively on capelin, which is a staple diet for seals, then they must run into each other a lot underwater. Or maybe where you find capelin, you will find Cods, and Cods happen to get eaten too.

Answer E: No, that strengthens the argument because it suggests that the seals have nothing to do with the cod decrease.

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation. Got this question wrong and choose A because I could find any answer I was happy with.

*The kind of question this is:* Weaken

*Paraphrased question:*

First legislator:

Premises: Medical Research is predominantly done on groups of only men. For example, the effects of coffee drinking on health are evaluated on only men, and studies are lacking on hormone treatments for older women.

Conclusion: Government sponsored medical research should be required to include studies of women.

Second Legislator:

Considerations of male/female balance are inappropriate with respect to research; they have no place in science.

*What I am looking for:* An answer that would attack the reasoning? (I got this question wrong and choose A.)

*Answer A:* No. That is information, but doesn’t effect the second legislator’s argument.

*Answer B:* No. Serving as a subject doesn’t address whether male or female groups will be created, nor does it address the second legislator’s conclusion, let along weaken it.

*Answer C:* No. This is information that does not talk about the issue of male over female patient groups.

*Answer D:* No, this is talking about the training of male and female scientists, and not them as group of patients. This is not helpful.

*Answer E:* Yes, if there were to be restrictions on males, this date base would result in inadequate science. Same case for females.

Sequence Games With A Twist

I Am Pretty Good At Making Inferences When I See Rules That I Am Accustomed To. However, Just About Every Game Introduces A New Concept That I Am Totally Oblivious To. Therefore, I Am Worried That When I Am Ready To Take The LSAT, Many Games Will Have Concepts I Have Never Seen Before.

Is It Safe To Say That Once I Make It Through All Of The Sequence Games With A Twist That I Have Seen Just About All Of The Tricks Of The Trade??? This Way I Can Be Prepared?????

PLEASE RESPOND.

I just took the LSAT for the first time this past Saturday (10/3). I know I didn't do as well as I need to - or even as well as I was PTing leading up the test. The RC threw me off and I had a mini panick attack (I calmed down quickly). Also, the break threw me off my concentration.

With all that said, I'm feeling good about retesting in December! the first time experience should help me be more calm, and I feel like I know exactly where I need to focus my efforts.

I'm thinking of buying the LR, LG, and RC bundles for PT1-38 from CambridgeLSAT, but am curious what the thoughts are about the reliability of old PTs vs. newer? Of course, I'm gonna do the new ones, but I'm gonna save them for closer to December. Are PT's 1-38 worth the time and money?

,

Saturday, October 10th at 8PM ET: PT72

Note:

Are you getting a clean copy of the preptest to BR the entire preptest ? Or are you just doing the problems you thought you may have gotten wrong ?