Many of us took the test today.

I have no idea how I did, I'm simply incapable of judging myself the way I usually can after doing a PT.

So, how do you all think you did?

If anyone needs help figuring out which section was experimental, I'd be happy to help.

It's an article about 2 schools of economics. I don't understand Q15 which answer is A. I chose B.

A. The environment's ability to yield raw material is limited.

B.Natural resources are an external constraint on economics.

Isn't that A can be interpreted as that natural resources is limited, and that's what Line 20-22 says (steady-state economists' view) and Line 30-35 saying "that natural resources, if depleted, can be replaced by'' shows that the neoclassical economists also believed that natural resources is LIMITED (although it could be replaced by other resources)?

And I don't see why B is wrong. Although the passage doesn't explicitly say that the steady-state economics hold this conception (or hold the conceptions like external/internal constraints.)

Can anyone explain this?

Many thanks!

Hey guys, you might have noticed that it's been a while since I've responded to comments. Sorry. I must have kept many of you waiting.

I'm withdrawing from responding to comments, broadly speaking. There are a two reasons for this.

First I'd like to focus on making videos which is an incredibly time consuming thing to do.

Second, I'd like to encourage you, our community, to help each other out. I realized that going forward, in the long run, if I keep responding to comments, I would be in effect encouraging the community to always specifically ask for my response, my help, which has the unintended effect of discouraging other students from responding. That's not good for building a community where we are both teachers and students.

I am still reading the comments. If there's enough confusion, I will clarify. But, you guys are smart and very nice to each other (thank you) so I don't anticipate many problems that you cannot resolve among yourselves.

You might have noticed that our commenting system has improved. First, recent comments show up directly on your command center, after you log in. Second, we've added the "Like" feature so now you can vote up helpful comments.

Hey everyone

I'm planning on retaking the LSAT in June after getting a 165 in February. I could do Skype if that works for you, and my schedule is wide open. Please let me know if you're interested!

Hey everyone

I'm planning on retaking the LSAT in June after getting a 165 on the awful, awful February test. I'd really like to find a study buddy/buddies if at all possible. My schedule is really flexible.

Im not sure what happaened I was viewing them just fine the other day

I am very confused with a specific relationship between universal quantifiers and existential quantifiers. This confusion becomes annoying in Assumption Questions. Please help! So, basically this is it:

1. "A-->C + A -->B"

2. "A-->C + A -most->B"

3. "A-->C + A some B"

For each of three given premises, we can conclude the same "B some C" relationship. Though the first part is the same "A-->C", the second part is different. I thought that this difference is understandable, because "A-->B" implies "A-most->B" and "A some B". So, we should have the same conclusion for "B some C". But the problem often arises.

For example, PT 24, LR2, Section 3, Question 19. Sufficient Assumption.

"Every student who walks to school goes home for lunch. It follows that some students who have part-time jobs do not walk to school."

The conclusion of the argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

Premise: Walks to schools-->Goes home for lunch.

Conclusion: Part-time jobs (some) Do not walk to school.

Take the contrapositive of the premise, we have "Do not go home for Lunch--> Do not walk to School"

Now, it becomes clear that he Sufficient Assumption to bridge the gap could be:

1. "Do not go home for lunch (some) Part-time jobs". This is the correct answer choice (d).

(d). Some students who do not go home for lunch have part-time jobs.

2. Do not go home for lunch -most-> Part-time jobs.

3. Do not go home for lunch --> Part-time jobs. (conditional)

If we take the contrapositive of 3, we have "No part-time jobs-->Go home for lunch". The contrapostive is logically equivalent to the original. Now, "No part-time jobs-->Go home for lunch" implies

"No part-time jobs -most-> Go home for lunch." and also implies

"No part-time jobs (some) go home for lunch." (This is exactly what the wrong answer choice A says.)

(a). some students who do not have part-time jobs go home for lunch.

Please help me clear this confusion. Is there anything I misunderstood? I really appreciate your help.

My first timed practice test was last summer - 142

First test was October 2013 - 155

Second test was February 2014 - 160

Thanks for all the help 7sage.

This is for the June 2014 LSAT. If interested please email: jason.campana@hotmail.com

Thanks :)

Jason

Anybody out there?

Seeking a study buddy in the Cincy area, plan on taking the lsat in June.

Anyone studying in the Atlanta area (I live in Duluth, NE of Atlanta) want to get a group together?? I'm aiming for the JUNE LSAT!

Does anyone know if the autumn LSAT has been changed from October to September? I was just on LSAC and these were the options that came up:

June 2014

September 2014 - not yet available

December 2014 - not yet available

February 2015 - not yet available

Thanks!

"Nearly every", "Almost All", "Close to none", "Almost none"

What are the exact definitions of these phrases?

Does "Nearly every" and "Almost All" = "most"?

Would "Close to none/zero" and "Almost none" = "some"?

Hey guys! Unsure of how to approach this question or why (A) is wrong. Help? :)

Hola! Happy Friday! Hope everyone is staying safe and warm in our little rain weather ;) If anyone is in the Orange County area and would like a study buddy let me know! I am prepping for June 2014 LSAT!

I am very confused with a specific relationship between universal quantifiers and existential quantifiers. This confusion becomes annoying in Assumption Questions. Please help! So, basically this is it:

1. "A-->C + A -->B"

2. "A-->C + A -most->B"

3. "A-->C + A some B"

For each of three given premises, we can conclude the same "B some C" relationship. Though the first part is the same "A-->C", the second part is different. I thought that this difference is understandable, because "A-->B" implies "A-most->B" and "A some B". So, we should have the same conclusion for "B some C". But the problem often arises.

For example, PT 24, LR2, Section 3, Question 19. Sufficient Assumption.

"Every student who walks to school goes home for lunch. It follows that some students who have part-time jobs do not walk to school."

The conclusion of the argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

Premise: Walks to schools-->Goes home for lunch.

Conclusion: Part-time jobs (some) Do not walk to school.

Take the contrapositive of the premise, we have "Do not go home for Lunch--> Do not walk to School"

Now, it becomes clear that he Sufficient Assumption to bridge the gap could be:

1. "Do not go home for lunch (some) Part-time jobs". This is the correct answer choice (d).

(d). Some students who do not go home for lunch have part-time jobs.

2. Do not go home for lunch -most-> Part-time jobs.

3. Do not go home for lunch --> Part-time jobs. (conditional)

If we take the contrapositive of 3, we have "No part-time jobs-->Go home for lunch". The contrapostive is logically equivalent to the original. Now, "No part-time jobs-->Go home for lunch" implies

"No part-time jobs -most-> Go home for lunch." and also implies

"No part-time jobs (some) go home for lunch." (This is exactly what the wrong answer choice A says.)

(a). some students who do not have part-time jobs go home for lunch.

Please help me clear this confusion. Is there anything I misunderstood? I really appreciate your help.

Looking to have a long-term committed study partner to meet once a week for June '14 test.

Discussing PTs and strategies can provide the benefit of two minds over one; also open to discussing any other sticking points.

I'll be retaking and have invested quite some time on this test by now. Shoot me a message if interested in giving this a try. Best!

Just now starting my LSAT Prep. E-mail me if you are serious about trying to get a high score.

If anyone lives in the Miami area and is serious about taking the LSAT on June please email me at esthera_09@hotmail.com .

I have heard that some tests are easier compared to other....is this true? If so, usually during which test date?

I am prepping to take my LSAT June 2014 looking for study partners in the Houston,TX area.Fairly new to the LSAT world.Please LMK if interested!

Just an FYI, for the preptests on the syllabus, after you click continue to the "Download and take the preptest" it goes to the "check and review your answers", but then it says "done" and sends you back to the syllabus as opposed to "continue" for the "Review every question and every section". Not really a problem, you just have to manually click on it from the syllabus page. Just thought I'd let you guys know.

Hey all,

I've been struggling with a problem, that is, repeating my mistake on some old questions, since the first day of my prep. At first, I made sure I understood the rationale behind the right answer and the wrong ones. Later on, maybe a week later, I find myself repeating the old mistake. I tried my best to internalize what I learned from the mistakes. My method is to cut off the questions and make them into flashcards, which seems to have helped me on this front. Do you guys have some helpful methods to really learn from the mistakes you made?

Thanks!

Hey all, I tested yesterday; I was a weather reschedule for the Feb 8th test.

I thought I'd just take a moment and let anyone who's interested know a bit about how a rescheduled test could potentially be a bit different than what you're preparing for =)

So in the event that you have to take a rescheduled test (I guess this is only likely during the winter season tests), be aware that you may run across a test whose LG go back to single-page format (I was a bit surprised for this when I opened up my test). In addition, while the RC section seemed pretty modern (I think as a result of needing to have the comparative section), the LR seemed very dated, and almost definitely were indeed. This seemed obvious to me, because (1) The wording was much more similar to the 40's than the 50's, 60's or 70's, and (2) the question content dated themselves at times pretty obviously (reference to the current popularity of the desktop PC and such).

LG were also -- for lack of a better way to describe them -- weird, just like they were in the 40's and before.

All of that to say, if you find yourself rescheduled, it might be worth your time to practice a LG section in the old style beforehand, and to maybe take or retake a PT in the 40's (which are just so much different from the 60's on) just incase =) certainly not a necessity by any means, but just be aware of the possiblity of an older-feeling rescheduled test!