Hey, guys. Why is there talk of three M here when the rules say exactly two M? JY mentions three M and others also mentioned in the comments section. What am I missing here? Three M was never an option for me becatse of that rule.
June'18 Study Group - PT78 | PLEASE see the date change | ... note that May 28th scheduled PT will be on Wednesday night ... to the group to do PT 82 that week to stay ... />
For everyone: take the PT under timed conditions; BR as ...
... -9. I went -15 on PT 63,65,79,81,83 ... on PT 76 and 78. Do you guys think PT 76 and 78 had ... be uplifting...) I mean yes PT 76 had an unusually easy ... notice that one passage in PT78(that clay *hit) was ... the beads nonsense passage from PT 76 under timed condition.
... last couple of months my PT scoring has seemed to plateau ... My section breakdown for those PT's is roughly -10 LR ... took my first 5 section PT and it was the ... also my first recent PT (made the jump from ... I felt really good about PT78 as a whole while taking ...
... Here is my recent five PT scores and BR scores:
6/7: PT 63 (retake) 163, BR 172 ... BR 173
6/26: PT78 (retake) 166, BR 175 PT 71, 78, 79 I took and ... scores are probably inflated. PT 87 probably is the most ...
Why is "only very careful drivers use headlights when their use is not legally required" the answer here? I literally can't bend my mind to figure out why that changes anything after the headlight law went into effect and the resulting lack of collision ...
Is the reasoning flaw in the stimulus that it concludes what makes something not censorship from the sufficient condition for censorship?
If A or B, then Censorship exists.
From this, we cannot conclude that censorship does not exist.
I was watching the explanation for the in/out game referring to a group of people who can only be hired if they are interviewed for a position. In the explanation for the last question in the set, it mentions that the problem states at ...
Hi all - I'd really appreciate your help on understanding the argument in this question.
I get the gap in this question is that just because first doctrine states that "all historical events must be explained in economic factors" doesn't ...
Can someone help explain this question to me? It's the first LR question I haven't been able to understand, even after blind review and review. I chose answer choice B.
I was stuck between B and C, and ultimately ended up going with C. I immediately crossed out D because I didn't think it was relevant. Would really appreciate someone's insight.