When I took my LSAT in 2014 I had (LR #1)= -8, (LR #2) = -5, LG= -13 and RC= -8.

I guess I'm just a little confused on the comments regarding conditional answers weakening when it fails to consider an aspect. So for instance for #13 since the argument failed to consider that

Ok, so for #13, like most weaken/strengthen questions, I want to break down the stimulus and find the flaw/gap. Finding the flaw first makes this such an easier process.

Oh sorry I didn't know that. The first one is from PT 4 section 1 #13. I was able to get it correct (D) by elimination but was hesitant due to not knowing if the sufficient condition had to be me

I can combine 1 and 2 (~B-> ~A: Contrapositive #1 and C-> ~A) and turn out C-> ~B.

Invisible man passage.

Rule #1 of Reddit... Never tell anyone your screen name hahah... Time to make an alt!

The common understanding among law school applicants is that if you want a reasonable shot at practicing "big law" you HAVE to get T14. My questions is, why 14? I understand that you have to

Ok so I would appreciate feedback on my thought process for this Nec. Assumption question. I chose B incorrectly and am trying f

"People want to be instantly"

Might be (thus the O&G analogy). I don't know. You gotta keep in mind that UT is #15 and ASU is #26 or so, so that might also affect portability. I could be wrong. That's why you should

I would not go to UTex (#15 and still has plenty of reach outside of TX/the South), for instance, if you want to do sports law (I haven't heard anything about that kind of concentration there, no

Premise

A necessary assumption question, such as #19, asks us what assumption is required, or necessary, for the argument to obtain. A sufficient assumption questions asks us to justify the argument, but not

confusion, though, is that even if networking is #1 (which I fully believe), wouldn't it be important to be able to take quality sport/ent law classes in school, as opposed to hypothetically goi

I thought B was right during PT, but decided to try negating the answer choices during BR, and got distracted by C.

I believe the OP is referring to PT 20 Section #1 Question 1

After reviewing, i understand the conflict is that Kendrick says cig ads should be prevented but also remain legal. I dont understand how that's a conflict.There are lots of things we all think …

Say you are working through the LAWGIC chapter and you comment that you don't understand contrapositive on slide 34/55. Your comment would automatically move to the #1 spot on a list with a link

Sit down after registration, fill out scan sheet with identifiable information (not timed, everyone does this together), instructions read for #1, 35 minutes, instructions read for #2, 35 minutes, ins