173 on PT 73.

-0 LG (PT 28.2, Experimental)

-6 RC

-2 LR1

-0 LG

-1 LR2

That reading comp tho. Still averaging in the low 170s. 173 is a bit higher than most of my scores, but not by so much as to be indicative of progress. Still peaked at 176 back in June on PT74.

re: rc: The 5 minute warning was called before I made it to the 4th passage so it’s not surprising I missed 4 of the final 6 questions. I’ve been saying ‘the speed will come on reading comp’ for about two months now, and bitch still aint come. Time to get serious about RC and drill more than 1-2 sections/week. Tired of bullspitting myself. Gonna have to get my reading comp scores to -4 at the most if I want 175+ in Sept.

How many days are in August? 30? 31? And why don’t I know?

Whatever the answer is, that’s how many RC sections I want to drill over the course of the month. Leggoooooo


Getting fatter than a walrus, ive gained a couple hundred pounds in the last couple decasde


Took PT76 on Saturday.

-11, a converted score of 171. Better than my previous score (168 mfker) by quite a bit, but still no 176.

Score Breakdown:

RC (-8)

LR1 (-0)

LG (-2)

LR2 (-1)

So yeah. -8 on RC doesn’t feel good. There wasn’t one passage in particular that I bombed. Feels bad man. I need to drill RC a lot of over the next 7 weeks because…

DRILLING WORKS, MAN. That LR score tho, right? It’s the best I’ve done on LR on a PT (ever) and it really feels good. I had ample time leftover in both sections. I think this is in part due to the fact that I’ve been reading question stems before stimuli and in part due to the fact that I’m beginning to be more confident (which leads to and is a result of more prephrasing correct answers, more skimming for answers that match my prephrase, and more moving on quickly after determining the correct answer).

LG–I dont know about you, dude. 2 questions wrong on the last game. Ran out of time. It wasn’t even that hard–so why was it so hard??

The deep questions

my father’s father was an alcoholic and my father was an alcoholic and i had a substance abuse problem including an alcohol problem by the time i was 22 and 23 now but and i but i just think it’s really important to keep this on the front of my frontal lobe or some shit, fam, because my father doesnt drink now and neither do i

Need to keep up the prep.

Also took PT68.1 (LR) on Friday and reviewed with Kurt on Sat. We both went -3. Doesn’t feel great but I knew it was a difficult section. Sometimes you just know, you know?

Need to keep up the prep. (So much foods nom nom onom)


Waddup cruel & indifferent universe

how r u todya lol

Writing this a day late (as I sometimes tend to do) but fuck at least I’m writing it okay?


So last week I had some downtime and printed out some games from old cambridgeLSAT pdf’s I have (don’t ask me how I got them–I’m sworn to secrecy). More specifically, games from PTs 41-43. I have three copies of each.

I did the games from 41 and 43 yesterday at work (I hope boss never finds out about this blog shhhh)

After work, I did some warmup LR questions from the first two pages of a section from PT57, and then, feeling sufficiently “in the zone,” 68.2. BR’d with Kurt afterwords. Finished in time and went -1, only missing question 16, a principle/strengthen question the stimulus of which I just did not comprehend. It made sense on review tho (Kurt got the question correct).



Let’s Do Blind Review (PT 57.2.25)

Welcome to hell. Must-be-true questions are usually fairly simple. This one is not.

The Question

25. The law of the city of Weston regarding contributions to mayoral campaigns is as follows: all contributions to these campaigns in excess of $100 made by nonresidents of Weston who are not former residents of Weston must be registered with the city council. Brimley’s mayoral campaign clearly complied with this law since it accepted contributions only from residents and former residents of Weston.

Question stem: If all the statements above are true, which one of the following statements must be true?

(A) No nonresident of Weston contributed in excess of $100 to Brimley’s campaign.

(B) Some contributions to Brimley’s campaign in excess of $100 were registered with the city council.

(C) No contribution to Brimley’s campaign needed to be registered with the city council.

(D) All contributions to Brimley’s campaign that were registered with the city council were in excess of $100.

(E) Brimley’s campaign did not register any contributions with the city council.

The Argument

So this is not the first time I’ve done section 57.2–it’s not the first time I’d come across the specific question. Still, when I got to the stimulus, I had no idea what was going on. Let’s try and break it down:

  1. Principle: (universal) If contribution >$100, and nonresident, and not former resident, then must register with CC.

  2. Conclusion: We followed this principle–only residents and former residents made contributions.

What’s Going on Here?

Some double negatives and obfuscation, that’s what. On the real, this shit is just hard to make sense of, partly because of the complex and dense conditional principle, but mostly because the answer is asking us what must be true of the situation. In other words, that means we have to make an inference about what follows logically from the facts in the stimulus. But what even were that facts in the stimulus?

  1. Only two groups made contributions to the campaign: residents and former residents.
  2. If (E$ + ~resident + ~former resident )–> RCC

That’s it. That’s all we’ve got to go off of. Tell me, now–what must be true?

Let’s see.

One thing that jumps out to me is that if all contributions were made by residents and former residents, then no nonresident who is not a former resident made a contribution (or, more accurately, no such contribution if made was accepted by the campaign).

We can think of it like this: any person who makes a contribution is either a resident or they are a nonresident. If they are residents, then, hey–great, whatever–the sufficient condition in the general principle fails, and nothing happens; in this case, the rest of the conditional doesn’t tell us anything meaningful about this group. The sufficient condition fails because one of the conjuncts isn’t satisfied: that of being a nonresident. Residents aren’t nonresidents.

If a person is a nonresident, then the conditional will be applicable if the other two conjuncts are satisfied. But in the case of Brimley’s mayoral campaign, no nonresident who made a contribution is not not a former resident! Remember, we’re told in the stimulus that all accepted campaign contributions were made by either residents or former residents. So if an accepted campaign contribution was made by a nonresident, it was made by a former resident! Necessarily! Again: if a contribution was accepted, that contribution was made by either a nonresident or a former resident. Which is just a really fucking convoluted way of saying that no contribution from a nonresident who is not a former resident was accepted.

Another way of stating it: shit was grassroots. No contributions from out-of-towners who didn’t used to live here. No big superPACs. No money from distant cousins you’ve never seen that you didn’t grow up with. No money from mysterious Russian billionaires or demented and babyish American despots. Just townies or people who at least at one point were townies.

Thus, we’ve gotten to the root of it (or at least the root of something): The conclusion, that the mayoral campaign followed the principle, is true because the sufficient condition failed. In order for it not to have failed, an accepted contribution would’ve had to have been made by a nonresident nonformer resident. Donations from such individuals, if they were made, were not accepted by the campaign.

The law of the city of Weston was simply irrelevant to the mayoral campaign. Thus, the campaign complied (complied here meaning simply ‘did not violate’) with the law.

But we haven’t even begun addressing the question: given this, what must be true?


The Answer Choices

At this point, I still don’t have a good pre-phrase. I’m not sure what has to be true. I think it’s best to just jump into the AC’s and see what jives with the explication above.

(A) No nonresident of Weston’s campaign contributed in excess of $100 to Brimley’s campaign.

This is the answer I chose originally. Now, I’m not feeling good about it. In my defense, puppies were barking and my fucking roommate–godblesshissoul–would not stop squeaking his motherfucking squeaky toy. All I could think was can you please stop squeaking your squeaker for the love of god. (It needs to be said that he’s probably the best roommate one could ever ask for and that there are pretty much never disputes between us–if two minutes of rabidly squeaking a squeaky toy is my biggest complaint, I’m okay with that) (also I should probably have been wearing headphones).

Anyway, can’t this be false? Can’t it be the case that a former resident of Weston contributed in excess of $100? This has to be the wrong answer.

(B) Some contributions to Brimley’s campaign in excess of $100 were registered with the city council.

Again, can’t this be false? The principle tells us about contributions made in a very specific context: by nonresident, nonformer resident, in excess of $100. It tells us that these contributions need to be RCC. Importantly, it tells us about only these contributions. It could be the case that all contributions made to the campaign were under $100. Couldn’t it?

(C) No contributions to Brimley’s campaign needed to be registered with the city council.

Initially I had mixed feelings about this AC. It doesn’t stand out to me as being obviously true. I asked myself: couldn’t it be the case that there’s another law requiring any contribution made by a resident or former resident to be registered with the city council? And, in this case, wouldn’t all contributions need to be registered?

I asked myself this, then looked at the other AC’s, then went back to the passage. And that’s when it hit me. “The law of the city of Weston regarding contributions to mayoral campaigns is as follows.” Boom. There it is. This is the law regarding all contributions, and this is the only law.

No, if this is the only law, then the only time contributions would need to be registered would be when the three conjuncts of the antecedent of this law are met. If the sufficient condition fails, there’s never a time when contributions need to be registered with the city council

(D) All contributions to Brimley’s campaign were registered with the city council were in excess of $100.

There’s simply no reason this needs to be true. We have no way of gauging the $ amount of any donations, much less all of them.


(E) Brimley’s campaign did not register any contributions with the city council.

So the difference between (E) and (C) is subtle, but crucial. Basically it’s too strong: what’s to say that Brimley’s campaign couldn’t have registered any number of its contributions? All we know for sure is that the contributions didn’t need to be registered.

Fuck I Hope We Got It Right Or Else We Really Screwed the Pooch

I haven’t looked at the answers yet, so (C) could very well be wrong. I really hope it isn’t because that’ll mean pretty much everything I’ve said up til this point is utter bull spit. Which–aside from being embarrassing–would not bode well for my logically reasoning ability in general. Or else would mean that I’ve just grossly misunderstood this question.

Checking answers…



Aye. So (C) is right. Still got the question wrong on when it counted (remember my original AC was (A)) but I’m glad I got to understand this question better and really NERD IT UP for a solid hour.

Until next time, guys.




Man I’ve had some trouble keeping up with this blog since I took a hiatus a couple weeks ago. I’ve still been studying daily–Saturday I took full 5-section PT and Sunday I drilled two sections of games–but haven’t gotten around to writing about it.

I cannot get complacent. Especially not after the 168 on PT 78 Saturday.

I went -3 on LR 1, -3 on LG, -1 on LR 2, and -6 on RC.

Sucks to miss Games questions. Especially 3 of them. The thing is, I got done the section in time, so it wasn’t like I went 20/20 and then ran out of time for the last 3 questions. No, I missed one question (the very first question of the entire section) on the first game, one question on the second game, and another question in the middle of the fourth game. Sucks. Missing the first question indicates to me that either I’m rushing or I don’t have a solid understanding of the fundamentals. Probably, the truth is a combination of both. I watched the 7sage video explanations to review the games sections.

-4 overall on LR is decent, if unideal. I’m writing this at work so I don’t have the test in front of me, but I input my AC’s into 7Sage Analytics. So let me take a look…

I missed:

  • 1 RRE (discrepancy)
  • 1 Necessary Assumption
  • 1 Strengthen
  • 1 Evaluate the Argument

So this isn’t a lot to work with, as far as studying and drilling questions by type goes. I don’t have enough data for there to be recognizable patterns from which to make conclusions about my weaknesses. In my June posts, I was detailing question types I missed quite often. But this wasn’t comprehensive. I suppose I could go back and input into Analytics answers from sections I’ve taken previously, and I might do this if I find the time. In any case, I’ll use 7Sage Analytics for sections I take from here on out.

RC was shit. Just ran out of time. Ugh.

Woulda been a 171 if I went -0 on games.

Woulda. Coulda. Shoulda. 2 months of studying to go! I can do this.

Yesterday (7.17.2017) I did the games sections from SuperPrep tests A and B. They were really difficult–I didn’t even get to the fourth game of A in time. And I missed four questions before game four. I moved a bit quicker in B, though my phone died midway through game 3 and with it any reliable way to have known how much time had passed since beginning the section. Probably somewhere between 35-38 mins if I had to guess.

The grind continues.



And We’re Back

*coughs from inhaling probably weed* you don’t want that shit.

-conro orbest, as heard in the outro of the Desaparecidos song “Mañana”

Light from unlight. Or light from light from light and so on, ad infinitum. Remember what the professor said: there is nothing logically inconsistent about an infinite causal chain.

Light, here.

Lanky legs illuminated and full pubes too and boy blue in his bedroom naked as his dick laying on his bed, mostly legs, almost arachnid, reading james joyce’s a portrait of the artist as a young man thinking the only good pun i can come up with for my magnum opus which will inevitably cleverly allude to james joyce is a portrait of the fartist as a young man and that’s not even close to being good, or clever.

And then remember how david foster wallace talked about being twentysomething wanting to be clever and how students who want to be clever are like literally the worst. and then think would mr. foster wallace think well of father john misty? and think too didn’t dave predict this whole trumpian dystopia and–fuck–i wish he were still alive to help me.

think a bit selfish, maybe.

Pause put the novel down and think jesus time is moving pretty fast huh, already july. We’ve come far. The beginnings of existential dread as the mind constricts itself with thoughts of past and future, wrapping itself in unrealities,

and then ha woops catch yourself bud, ha there you go, no we must not get rapt.

Pick the novel back up and continue reading and let the mind breathe and maybe a pun better than fartist will come to you.





things are still things

motherboard in macbook fried

like avacado on torchy’s freid acvvando taco.

frieda kahlow.

feelin callow

or so says genius at apple store.

had to send my baby away

hopefully have laptop

before this weekend

spent 5 hrs sat

drillin games


and 3 sun on LR

random LR sections

and shit.

studyin studyin studyin.

won’t write much this week until

i get my laptop back probably

but studyin studyin study

hopefully have gooood

results and be able

to learn from my




like tehe man w micro

phone said

physics makes us all its bitches