I think 70 tests is overkill. As long as you are able to analyze and learn from your mistakes, you should be able to improve doing a fraction of the tests.
My experience was from almost two decades ago and is atypical. I had decided to write it only just a month before the LSAT, and so I started prior tests only four weeks before the test date. In that time, I did 27 official practice tests. I also read a couple books and tried two unofficial tests.
I tracked my results in a spreadsheet and had a marginal improvement from 173.4 to 176 for the first five and last five tests. But, essentially all improvement happened after just ten tests.
In all practice tests, I did best in logic games, answering 98.1% correct, compared with 93.5% for logical reasoning and 91.4% for reading comprehension.
I was somewhat lucky and got 97/99 on the actual test, enough for a 180 that time (2 incorrect in logical reasoning). I had only got that twice in the practice tests with an expectation between 174 and 180 with a median of 176.
After each test I analyzed every incorrect answer as well as the ones I was less sure about. There were online forums where I could ask about, or see other people's analysis of the problem questions.
I think a strategy aimed understanding wrong answers in your weakest area can be a more efficient use of preparation time.
"I think a strategy aimed understanding wrong answers in your weakest area can be a more efficient use of preparation time."
This is how I study. I don't need to review my strong areas, I need to learn the weak ones. I can cruise through tech certs very quickly this way. People are always surprised when I can learn earn a cert after studying only 2-10 hours for it.
I only buy portable Li-ion batteries from manufacturers with a history of product recalls in my country or directly from major retailers that regularly recall defective products.
I also only buy portable battery models that I believe will sell or has sold many thousands of units so any widespread manufacturering defects should become apparent sooner.
"To the Federal Aviation Administration:" " Once you complete the certification of Boeing Commercial Airplanes’ design enhancement for ensuring the complete closure of Boeing 737 mid exit door (MED) plugs following opening or removal, issue an airworthiness directive to require that all in-service MED plug-equipped airplanes be retrofitted with the design enhancement. (A-25-15)"
This article: https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/news/boeing-completes-design..., suggests that the design enhancement will add "secondary retention devices" that "prevent installation of the cabin sidewall panels unless they are properly engaged." The article indicates that the existing bolts will also get lanyards that will "'permanently secure the bolts to the plug' and provide a visual indication' of whether they have been installed correctly."
As I understand it, this product involved using fractional shares to try to adhere to an index, while using tax loss harvesting to optimize for tax.
Fractional shares cannot be transferred between brokerages and are generally sold when transferring brokerages. If you owned on average, half a share of the largest 250 US companies, you'd may need to sell about $30,000 in shares, which could result in an unexpected tax bill.
There are large brokerages and companies offering similar direct indexing products, generally at a higher cost. However, I expect those products are less likely to be shut down.
The problem was easy/trivial competition from larger brokerage firms. The core IP was all about tax optimization. The same customers who would employee direct indexing already have dedicated accounting services for exactly that purpose and the additional brokerage fees are either sunk costs or de minimis.
To use an analogy, the folks who are hedge fund customers don't care about the lack of liquidity or higher management fees. You can't capture that market on margin, volume, or any kind of flow ancillaries.
I believe data from all New York City trips from companies like Lyft and Uber since 2019 [1] can be downloaded from Taxi & Limousine Commission [2]. This data appears to include information such as the fare, date and time and TLC taxi zones for the pickup and dropoff [3].
I wonder if there is enough granularity in this data to make a determination if there's a large discrepancy/variation in fare in certain taxi zones at the same time with Uber, compared with Lyft or other competitors.
One issue I have with this article is that it doesn't discuss the distinction between Government money market funds that invest in US Treasury debt and repurchase agreements, and Prime money market funds, that also invest in riskier assets like corporate paper.
I'm comfortable with holding significant amounts in a Government MM fund, but less so with Prime MM funds.
Also, if you value the state tax exemption (for example, you live in California), you need to make sure the fund only invests in Treasuries and not in repurchase agreements. Treasuries are state tax exempt, but repos are not. If your fund holds a mix, you need to tease them apart at tax time.
Or just buy the Treasuries directly. Why pay a fund to do it for you?
Yea, buying into a MMF only makes sense if you need the money to be semi liquid since it only takes a day or so to cash out.
Otherwise buying short term treasuries is quite easy on most brokers. The downsise being it may not be as quick to sell on the secondary market when you need to cash out unless you get competitive with the sell terms.
Buyer availability really isn't a concern, especially for short term bills. I've never had even the slightest problem selling a T-bill one the secondary market. It's almost always as instant as selling 100 shares of a stock.
Thank you for this comment. I was really confused on the difference between MMFs and T Bills, going by the other comments in this thread it seemed like there is a preference for MMFs without stating why.
Seems to be roughly even, with somewhat more TSA PreCheck-only members than Global Entry members (including NEXUS and SENTRI).
As of March 2023, TSA said [1]: "TSA PreCheck® application program has surpassed 15 million active members" and "Thirty-two million travelers now benefit from TSA PreCheck expedited screening after being vetted though TSA PreCheck ®, U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Global Entry or another federal vetting program."
As of September 2023, CBP announced stated that there were over 12 million Global Entry members in a press release. [2]
This appears to include SENTRI and NEXUS members, since as of July 2022 it was stated: [3] "There are over 7.6 million participants enrolled directly in Global Entry, and over 1.8 million members of NEXUS and SENTRI that also receive Global Entry benefits."
My experience was from almost two decades ago and is atypical. I had decided to write it only just a month before the LSAT, and so I started prior tests only four weeks before the test date. In that time, I did 27 official practice tests. I also read a couple books and tried two unofficial tests.
I tracked my results in a spreadsheet and had a marginal improvement from 173.4 to 176 for the first five and last five tests. But, essentially all improvement happened after just ten tests.
In all practice tests, I did best in logic games, answering 98.1% correct, compared with 93.5% for logical reasoning and 91.4% for reading comprehension.
I was somewhat lucky and got 97/99 on the actual test, enough for a 180 that time (2 incorrect in logical reasoning). I had only got that twice in the practice tests with an expectation between 174 and 180 with a median of 176.
After each test I analyzed every incorrect answer as well as the ones I was less sure about. There were online forums where I could ask about, or see other people's analysis of the problem questions.
I think a strategy aimed understanding wrong answers in your weakest area can be a more efficient use of preparation time.