I'm reviewing RRE LR questions. I came across PrepTest February 1997 Section 1 Question 23 (the one about the professor's travel plans) in a drill. Even after blind review, I got it wrong. I know the right answer, but I don't know why it's right or why the other ones are wrong. Can someone explain it to me? I'm not sure where to even start with this one.

Admin note: Edited title. Please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description of question]"

Hey everyone

I am looking for an Active LSAT Discord Server. I am prepping to take the LSAT June 2023. I am also looking for partners to study with preferably once a week. I am a non traditional student who works full time but my schedule is different everyday so I have some flexibility. This will not be my first time taking the LSAT. Looking to score in the 165 range!

How will 7Sage be affected by LSAC maintenance scheduled from 7/11 - 7/13 and 7/24 - 7/28? Will we still able to practice test / drill? If not, what can we do to ensure we have study material during these outages in service?

Title says it all.

I have a hard time blind reviewing. I am currently working through the CC and whenever I finish a lesson I focus on drilling questions from that lesson; Isolated questions. Questions from pt 37-159. Approx. 20 questions in two days with 3-5 questions of the previous lessons.

So, after completing these drills, I just check the answers. Most of the time I am down to two answers and initially choose the right answer, but second guess myself and choose the wrong answer.

I look at the question that I got wrong and what the correct answer was and I just think to myself, "Damn, I knew it, I had it chosen at first but went with the other answer" or "I knew it.. I should have chosen that answer" without choosing it the first time.

So, should I blind review my drills of specific questions, or should I wait to blind review full pts after I finish the CC and I'm doing all the question types rather than the current lesson plus previous lessons.

Also, I feel like I'm not really getting anything out of BR. I will just watch the video and explanation and be like ok that makes sense, but still make the same errors.

For example, I'm on SA questions. I would do about 20 SA questions with an additional 20 - 25 questions of MBT, STR, Weaken, MSS, MC. I would do all the easiest questions, move onto easier, and so on. Every few weeks or so I would combine them all and do a 20-25 question drill of all the types I've been practicing with a wide range level of difficulties.

I choose answer C but I realized that it says nothing about it and the only answer really thats discussed in part from the passage is the answer E. Curious to hear your thoughts.

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

I answered (C): I thought this would be right because it was the statement that was most backed up by what is in the stimulus.

The right answer is (E):I was battling between C and E, but I didn't pick E because it seemed like a statement although true, the stimulus was not supporting it directly.

Can someone explain why E is correct and why C is wrong? I feel like I am overthinking this.

Admin note: Edited title and post; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]." Also, please review the Forum rules "Do not post LSAT questions", the title format helps others reference the PT and question. Thanks!

Location: Virginia and D.C area

Looking for forming a study group for the upcoming LSAT dates, comment below and I will review and reach out to everyone. I will check this discussion post at February 25th. Lets tackle this exam and build our skills together!

Anybody in the Phoenix area down to form a study group?

Hey, curious how to flag specific questions in the practice tests. Is there someway of doing this?

Stimulus says: Manners are necessarily social (i.e. manners require a social element). Morals are not necessarily social (i.e. morals do not require a social element). Rules of etiquette do not apply to situations with morals or manners alone.

Things I noted upon reading:

Most strongly supported?

A: You can be immoral without causing harm. (i.e. you can not be moral in a case that is not social). Yep, this fits with #3 above.

B: An immoral act is never a violation of etiquette. This could be false if the situation also involved manners, so we can´t say it is supported.

C: Morality applies only when one is alone. I think you´d only choose this if you were hella confused.

D.: It is more important... I stopped reading right there and knew this was wrong. There is no comparison being made in the stimulus.

E: A social situation will never have anything to do with morality. Clearly wrong based on #2 and #3 described above.

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

Hi! I am currently at a 156 average for the LSAT and I have the following questions regarding each seciton:

For logic games it is time, when I blind review I get it all correct but I really struggle in doing it all in the allotted time. I assume the best way to practice is by just doing it over and over again to get down on time? Does that make sense or has anyone else suffered the same issue and figured out a better way to do logic games quicker?

For Logical Reasoning I kind of struggle on just a random few ones each time -- So for those of you have increased LR what is the most effective way you find with studying for LR? Like should I just do all of the lessons or for time purposes are there one's you recommend over others? Should I do a bunch of practice? How many a day? Any advice would be so appreciated!!

And last for reading comprehension I am weirdly just so bad at these. I read everyday for my major so it really makes me sad that this is where I perform worst so really any advice on books or lessons or practice methods that most helped you I would really appreciate!!

Thank you so much in advance.

I've been having a hard time finding others who are also studying for the LSAT. Would prefer to meet up anywhere within the 610 loop! :) LMK so we can create a group!

Hello,

Is anyone located in the Twin Cities who would be interested in meeting in person to study?

Comment below if you're interested.

i read recently an article by the ABA that indicated that lawyers on average score very high on surveys in positive traits like analytical reasoning and abstract reasoning, but very poorly on sociability and , notably, "resilience" which apparently is a trait meaning how well someone "rolls with the punches"...."lets things go" etc. just general agreeableness i guess you could say

have you noticed any negative personality changes in yourself as a result of lsat study? i love studying for the lsat. on balance, im happy with the way the geometry of my thinking has been reshaped by the test. but ive also definitely become a more cynical person. ive become more circumspect of the motives of others, and ive become much more critical toward things people say. the change in this person climate of mine has produced new weather patterns of occasional annoyance, irritation, and downpours of negativity. i find it interesting honestly. ive read all the positive ways the test has changed people , but talk to me about some of the negative ways? thank you

https://www.legal500.com/gc-magazine/feature/all-in-the-mind/

above is the article. its an interesting read. i originally read it on the ABA site a while back.

Hello,

I'm looking for a study buddy for the upcoming June test and looking to apply to few schools in New York that will accept the June test for this fall semester. Willing to meet online or in person if you're located in NYC. Need someone who can hold each other accountable and able to teach each other and go over the drills/sections/PTs. Let me know if interested and we can set something up!

I chose B, and then A, as I was unsure how this claim directly supported the main conclusion...

These are one type of question I often struggle a bit with, so I figured I would write out a bunch of common answer choice labels and define them in my own words, and was hoping others could weigh in on my definitions and possibly offer corrections, or general advice for these questions. Otherwise hopefully these definitions will help you clarify when examining the answer choices.

I find the most common labels are:

Analogy

Generalization

Example

Evidence

Premise

Sub conclusion

Principle

Support (offered as)

Premise

Main Conclusion

Destinction

Some of these are obvious, but others seem to be worth definition.

Analogy: A comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification. Example: Finding an extra point on the lsat is like finding a needle in a haystack. An analogy actually functions quite similarly to a principle - while a principle makes a broad claim and applies it to a specific case, and analogy takes one specific case and applies it to another.

Generalization - A claim, drawn from a piece of evidence about a broader population. When survey results are used to make statements about the general population, that is a generalization.

Example: I asked 50 people along the beach if they liked icecream,and they all said yes. [I guess everyone on the beach likes icecream.]

Evidence: When were talking about evidence were talking about something objective. Evidence is a fact or something observable that, in and of itself, says nothing about what should or ought to be. Sometimes you might think evidence implies something, for example, the claim [gun violence has risen 25% every year for the past 6 years] might indicate gun violence is a serious problem, but that's you applying the meaning.

Premise: a premise is a claim which is subjective. [Gun violence is a problem] is a subjective statement when it's used to support the conclusion: Thus, /we should invest more money in our police force/ Premises are directed towards and support conclusions.

Sub Conlusion: These get pretty easy to identify eventually. I just look at rather evidence is directed at it. A subconlusion is a joint which connects premises and often packages them together into something easier and more compact that can then be tied into the main conclusion. If your unsure which conclusion, just look at which conclusion is directing into the other. Example: Everyone on the beach likes icecream. They also like frenzies and popsicles. [This shows that everyone on the beach likes lots of cold snacks.] Thus, we should open an icecream store on the beach.

If we cut the icecream store part from this argument, the statement about cold snacks would be the MC. But because it offers support for a final statement, that statement becomes the main conclusion.

Support: Something in the argument that makes something else stronger. This is really broad, and can have a ton of applications. Essentially, everything in an argument exempt the main conclusion is a support for something else. Generalizations, analogies, examples, principals, and premises are all supporting portions of an argument. When you encounter the word support in an answer choice, you need to focus on the direction of the support. Is it actually supporting the thing the answer claims it is? Dont worry about support indicating a specific type of statement. Dont be like, "This isnt really a support, it's a principal". Everything except the MC and possibly redundant statements or context is support of some kind. Focus on the direction.

Principle: is ‘a fundamental idea or general rule that is used as a basis for a particular theory or system of belief’. On role of statement questiond, principles are often offered without further support in an argument. They are a claim about the way things should be, perhaps based on the basis that their truth is self evident. The can also be argued for, or be a conclusion. Example: We should not hold punish John for getting someone badly injured while speeding down the highway, because he was doing so to save three people who were badly injured who he was driving to the hospital. Doing so saved their lives and saved their families from massive grief, and of course, [One should always act in a way which maxamixes net happiness].

Many of these catagorise subsume or overlap with others. When approaching the answer choices, I find it reduces stress to remind myself of this. A statement could be a sub-conlusion, a principal, and support. I made this list mostly for myself but figured I'd post on here. Hopefully others found it helpful, if anyone has any criticisms / input please let me know.

Bonjour!

Long shot BUT:

I am currently living in Paris and would like someone (or even a group) to study with. If anyone else happens to be in Paris at the moment message me here and we can figure out a time and place to meet!

PT F97.S1.Q18 – Roseville Courthouse

We are asked to identify the point at issue / disagreement between Mayor Tyler and Councillor Simon. Tyler suggested to build a new courthouse for the city of Roseville in 1982 for a price of 26 million dollars, but ‘now’ in 1992 the price of the courthouse is 30 million. Tyler uses these premises to infer that Roseville would have saved 4 million dollars if the courthouse had been built in 1982, as suggested. Tyler also mentions in passing that the existing courthouse has been overcrowded.

Simon responds by bringing in the topic of inflation: The 26 million dollars that the courthouse would have costed in 1982 are equivalent to 37 million in 1992 dollars. Simon takes this to show that Roseville actually saved money by not building the courthouse. Simon also mentions in passing that the courthouse, had it actually been built, would have been underutilized.

There thus are at least two disagreements in this exchange, one much more overt than the other: (1) Roseville was right not to build the courthouse in 1982: Tyler disagrees, Simon agrees. (2) Had the courthouse been built, it would have been put to good use: Tyler agrees, Simon disagrees. The answer choices are tricky in that four of them purport to get at this first disagreement while not actually resolving it. Only one answer choice, the correct one, gets at the second disagreement and actually resolves it:

(A) This gets at Roseville’s actions going forward, does not directly relate to either disagreement.

(B) This gets at the issue of inflation adjusted prices, does not directly relate to either disagreement.

(C) This gets at the extent of Tyler’s responsibility, does not directly relate to either disagreement.

(D) This does get at the second disagreement and points out one issue where Tyler and Simon disagree: Would a new courthouse actually have been needed / been put to good use? Tyler agrees, as Tyler proclaims the present courthouse overcrowded, i.e. insufficient to serve Roseville’s existing population spatially. Simon disagrees; states that a hypothetical larger courthouse would have remained underutilized. The disagreement is subtle, but definitely present.

(E) This confuses the issue of inflation adjustment with financial upkeep, purports to get at the first disagreement but actually misrepresents information from the passage, in an apparent attempt to confuse test takers who did not select one of the previous answers the first time around.

Takeaway: This is a tricky question in that there are two disagreements only one of which gets resolved. The question stem arguably hints at this by speaking of ‘A point of disagreement,’ rather than of ‘The point of disagreement;’ i.e. the question stem leaves open the possibility of multiple disagreements. Nevertheless, this question demands some reflection. Read stimulus and answer choices more than once to get at the nuance of the issues at play. Do process of elimination for the wrong answer choices. If necessary, flag the question the first time around and return to it at the end of the section.

Have you ever found yourself grappling with a complex idea, struggling to understand its intricacies? Whether you're a student tackling a difficult subject or a professional trying to grasp a new concept, simplifying complex ideas can be a game-changer. Fortunately, there's a systematic approach you can follow to break down even the most intricate concepts into manageable chunks. In this article, we'll explore a four-step guide to simplifying complex concepts effectively.

Step 1: Grasp the Core Idea

Every complex concept has a core idea at its heart. Your first task is to identify and understand this central concept. Start by breaking down the concept into its simplest form. What is it trying to explain or convey? What problem does it solve? Once you grasp the core idea, you'll have a solid foundation to build upon.

You can now let people join your group chat with a link. It's perfect for study groups.

Check it out: https://www.loom.com/share/94d344c8550c4389bfcd85e043e55f49

I want to give a shout out to @hhhakobian for being my study buddy. He has really elevated my critical thinking and logical reasoning skills. Even though he is a lot more advanced than I, he still takes time for our weekly session. I recently saw a big score jump on my last PT and I know I wouldn't be where I am without his guidance and advice. I have also made the switch to studying for shorter periods of time 5 or 6 days a week, versus longer periods of time just a few days a week. I think that has also helped.

@hhhakobian good luck on the Nov. LSAT! You're a rockstar and are going to kill the test, I know it.

Kat

Greetings! I could seriously use some outside opinions on this issue as I am beyond torn on what do:

I am currently in the end of my law school process and am in a tight spot. I currently have two acceptance letters (Hofstra and University of San Francisco) both with scholarship offers (although Hofstra’s scholarship offer extends beyond my 1L year, pending I keep a certain GPA). Both of these schools have April 15th First Seat Deposits. I am still waiting to hear back from two schools (Pace Law, which is ranked slightly higher than Hofstra & Syracuse, which is my dream school). If it helps, I want to become a sports and entertainment lawyer (more focused on Employment/Labor Law, Contract, Copyright, and Trademark law) and believe my pursuits would be best suited to take place here in New York (thus why USF has been eliminated).

I applied to Syracuse in late January and my application was marked as complete and in review 2 months ago. I still haven’t heard anything from Syracuse. My first question is if I haven’t heard anything by now, does that mean or hint something in terms of my applicant status ?

My second choice would be Pace, which has a transfer history with schools I am interested in exploring a transfer to such as USC and Fordham (would be for my second year) and . My LSAT falls above their 50th percentile (153) but my undergrad GPA is 2.89 (Grad school GPA of 3.67). Would my academic credentials grant me admission into Pace? I applied last week and the file is currently under review.

These questions lead me to Hofstra which is my third option. The 1st seat deposit of $400 is due next Monday. Should I pay it and hope that Pace and/or Syracuse get back to me before the second seat deposit is due for Hofstra (which is May 1st)? They offered me a waiver for both seat deposits (a total of $1000) which would bind me to matriculate to Hofstra and withdraw all my other applications but again, this is my third choice and if I got into the other two schools, I would go before I went here.

I know a lot of questions (3 in total) but any advice on this current situation will help! I think having some outside eyes on it could help me in my line of thinking. I do not want to pay the seat deposit but also do not want “screw” myself out of admission to a law school.

Trying to figure out where I should devote my energy in anticipation of the June LSAT!!

I’d like to take the exam in my living room, but the way to my kitchen is open as is the hallway to my front door. If I taped a curtain over both of these openings, thereby making my living room an enclosed box, would this satisfy the test room requirements? If anyone knows or just has suggestions I’d really appreciate it!