Sigh, these standardized tests all come down to timing. I just took another practice exam today, and this time for each section I marked where I was when time was up, then continued and finished the rest of the section. Then I scored myself based on both the timed and untimed results, and the scores were quite telling: 179 untimed vs. 169 timed. Without the time restrictions, I only missed 3 questions total. With the time restrictions, my raw score was altered as follows:

• - 11 from questions I didn’t get to before time was up.
• + 1 from blindly filling in (C) to the above 11 questions (talk about bad luck).
• - 2 from questions I revisited after time was up and would otherwise have missed.

That makes a total of -12 raw points, which translated to -10 LSAT points for this particular exam. The time factored most heavily in the reading comprehension and logic sections, for which I wasn’t able to get to 4 and 6 questions, respectively. The logic section was particularly deceptive– there are 4 sets of questions which need to be answered in 35 minutes, which approximates to 8 minutes and 45 seconds per set. I finished the first two sets in roughly 14 minutes, I started feeling a bit confident, and then the third set just ran me into the ground, taking me about 15 minutes to complete. Ya, I definitely need to work on my timing.

A lot of people hate standardized tests like the LSAT, and understandably so. For some strange reason, however, I find them kind of fun, except for the immense stress and trepidation associated with the test and its implications on one’s future. I’ll be glad when this whole thing is over, as long as I get a good score. *crosses fingers*

I just got my first untimed 180 on a practice exam today. I missed three questions– one in each of the two Arguments sections, and one in the Reading Comprehension section. (For this particular exam, you could’ve missed four questions and still gotten a 180, which is more than the typical two or three question buffer.) The answers to my missed Reading Comprehension question and the first Arguments question I can understand; however, for the other Arguments question, I have no idea how the test writers justify their “correct” answer. I’ve typed out the question and answer choices below. If anyone out there can provide me with a satisfactory reasoning for the “correct” answer, I’ll be be very impressed, because neither I nor my coworkers could figure this one out.

If a person chooses to walk rather than drive, there is one less vehicle emitting pollution into the air than there would be otherwise. Therefore if people would walk whenever it is feasible for them to do so, then pollution will be greatly reduced.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A)	If automobile passengers who never drive walk instead of ride, there will not be fewer vehicles on the road as a result.
(B)	Nonmoving running vehicles, on average, emit half as much pollution per second as moving vehicles, but the greater congestion is, the more nonmoving running vehicles there are.
(C)	Since different vehicles can pollute at different rates, it is possible for one driver who walks to make a greater contribution to pollution prevention than another driver who walks.
(D)	On average, buses pollute more than cars do, but buses usually carry more passengers than cars do.
(E)	Those who previously rode as passengers in a vehicle whose driver decides to walk instead of drive might themselves decide to drive.

Other than questions like the one above leaving me a bit frustrated and unsure, I’m pretty comfortable answering most of the questions on the LSAT. The hard part now is cutting down my time– in some sections by as much as 15 minutes. :(

EDIT: If you want to know the answer, highlight the text between these brackets: [B]

The parents say it means “Love Him” in Chinese, supposedly by taking the pronunciation “A-Teh” and extrapolating it out to “Ai Ta.” At least it’d be an interesting conversation starter once the kid grows up.

OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG… I just met Lea Salonga! And she signed my Les Misérables playbill! And we took a picture together! She’s so nice. :D But dang, my head looks so big in that picture. XD Being there by myself, there was no one else to take the picture for us, so I had to hold the camera out and do a self-take, thus the weird angle and dispraportionate head sizes. :p I’m just glad it turned out half decent. (^_^ And I swear, this is the ONLY time you’ll see me use so many OMGs and smileys. ^^;;