Cracking the LSAT, 2005
Random House Information Group, Jun 1, 2004 - Study Aids - 416 pages
If Itís on the LSAT, Itís in This Book The Princeton Review realizes that acing the LSAT is very different from getting straight Aís in school. We donít try to teach you everything there is to know about reading comprehension or analytic thinkingĖonly the techniques youíll need to score higher on the exam. Thereís a big difference. In Cracking the LSAT, weíll teach you how to think like the test writers and -Eliminate answer choices that look right but are planted to fool you -Master the 7 principles of LSAT test taking that you canít do without -Nail even the toughest question types across Arguments, Reading Comprehension, and Games -Practice online with full-length LSAT exams and instant scoring analysis This book includes 2 full-length practice LSAT exams. All of our practice test questions are like the ones youíll see on the actual LSAT, and we fully explain every solution.
6 pages matching Kassia in this book
Results 1-3 of 6
What people are saying - Write a review
able answer choices antelope assume the hypothetical Attack author's point Bauhaus berth of Cage Bosc pear campaign cause clues coco coco coco conclusion contrapositive Cortland apple cost crack deductions design-build diagram effect elements endangered species explain FLAW question floor Foghorns following statements fossil found in office furnishings are found goal handgun Here's Hollowmen Honduras hypothetical truth ibuprofen idea identify impact increase INFERENCE question Jarheads juror Kassia knee brace KT boundary law school legislator leopards look lower berth LSAT LSAT score main point naproxen sodium orange paragraph passage percent possible Princeton Review problem Process of Elimination programs read the question Reading Comprehension redistributional retrenchment Remember to assume rent right of publicity sing slot song SPECIFIC question Step sure symbolize Techniques track true upper berth Valencia orange voir dire WEAKEN question weaken the argument