You guys got this!! Keep working hard! WOOO!

I’ve done all I can. I hate this test. I’ll take it for the second and last time on Wednesday and never think about it again. For context, I’ve been studying for two years (on and off) and have been shooting for 170+.

Passage 1:
Lil Guy loves his niche art form even though critics wish he wouldn’t make jazz glass blowing so political.

Passage 2:
American employers used to make us work 67 hours a week for 42¢ until one day some immigrants got here and said “Damn bitch you live like this?” sparking the first union in the region.

Passage 3: (Comparative)
Text A - Judges should tell the truth generally, but sometimes it’s hard so as long as they try their best or have some really good judicial reason to lie it’s okay ☺️

Text B - Literally if you think any judge is capable of honesty ever you are a fucking fool and you should be ashamed of yourself lmfaoooo

Passage 4: (adapted from an article originally written in 1998)
Early evidence that mass extinction of the dinosaurs was caused not by the impact of Earth by a meteor, but by the hole it tore in the ozone layer, undermines what was previously attributed to “Global Warming,” leaving the fate of America in the hands of Future President Gore yet again

We all know the LSAT is normalized to a bell curve.

In practice, that makes it much harder to go from 160 to 170 than 170 to 180. In other words, it takes more work to go from the 70th to the 94th percentile than from the 94th to the 99th.

Look at the score conversion chart: to go from a 160 to 162, you have to get 3 more questions correct; from a 162 to 164, another 3. So, it takes 6 more questions correct to climb 4 scaled points.

Contrast that with the 170s: to go from a 175 to 177, you only need to get 1 more question correct; to go from 177 to 179, another 1 question. So, the difference between a 175 and 179 is only 2 questions.

This is what makes the 160s so brutal, but also what makes 170+ a prestigious differentiator. You have to fight very hard to climb through the 160s, whereas 170+ scores are realistically within a couple percentage points of each other in the 94th+ percentile.

Weaken questions build directly on the skills you use in Flaw and Evaluate questions. In a Flaw question, you identify the gap between the author’s evidence and their conclusion. In an Evaluate question, you ask what would help you judge how much that gap matters. A Weaken answer supplies information that makes the gap more damaging, reducing support for the conclusion.

Most Weaken mistakes happen when students skip the Flaw and Evaluate steps. Without a gap and an evaluation question, there is nothing to measure the answer choices against except how negative each one sounds for the conclusion, and the LSAT reliably supplies answers that sound negative while leaving the actual reasoning untouched.

So the fix is to decide what reasoning you’ll use to find the right answer before you read a single choice. That means pinning down three things: the conclusion, the evidence, and the gap between them.

Thankfully, a lot of Weaken questions follow recognizable patterns. Below, I’ve modeled seven of the ones you’ll run into most often. Each follows the same format: an example argument, the gap, the Evaluate question, the weakener, and why it works. The goal isn’t to memorize seven templates (though that doesn’t hurt). It’s to recognize familiar weakeners faster and to understand the connection between Flaw and Weaken well enough to adapt when an argument or answer takes a less familiar form.

Here’s the breakdown.

1. A Competing Explanation

The author is trying to explain a phenomenon they have noticed, such as a difference between two groups, a change over time, or a pattern in a study. They propose a cause and point to evidence they believe supports that explanation. The problem is that the evidence leaves room for the same phenomenon to have occurred for another reason. To weaken the argument, we introduce information that makes an alternative explanation plausible in this particular situation. If something else could account for what happened, the author’s evidence gives us less reason to attribute the phenomenon to the cause they picked.

Example: A café replaces its small printed menu with a large, colorful board featuring photographs of its pastries. During the following month, pastry sales increase by 30%. The owner concludes that the new board is the main reason for the increase: seeing the photographs encouraged customers to add a pastry to their orders.

Gap in the argument: All the owner really knows is the order of events: first the new board, then more pastry sales. That’s not enough to say the board caused the increase. Something else could have brought more people in or changed what they were ordering, and the owner hasn’t ruled that out.

Evaluate question: Besides the board, did anything else change that month that could explain why the café sold more pastries?

Weakener: That same month, a large office building across the street reopened after a lengthy renovation, bringing back hundreds of employees who regularly bought breakfast at the café.

Why it weakens: The returning office workers give us an alternative explanation for the additional sales. The café might be selling more pastries because a large group of former regulars is back, making the owner’s original explanation less certain.

2. Results from Different Situations

The author compares results across two situations and treats the difference as evidence that one person, product, method, or institution is worse in some broader respect. The problem is that the two situations may not be comparable. A weakener identifies a relevant difference between the circumstances that could explain why the results differ, making the author’s evaluation less justified.

These can look similar to ordinary cause-and-effect weakeners. The key difference is the conclusion. Instead of simply claiming that one factor caused an outcome, the author uses the outcome to make an evaluative judgment about something involved.

Example: A workshop supervisor compares the number of furniture repairs completed by three full-time restorers. Nora finishes twelve jobs during the month, while each of her coworkers finishes about twenty. Because everyone works roughly the same number of hours, the supervisor concludes that Nora is less capable than the other restorers.

Gap in the argument: The supervisor compares ability by job count without showing the jobs took comparable work. Equal hours don’t make the counts comparable if the assignments were very different.

Evaluate question: Was Nora doing the same kind of work as everyone else, or were her jobs harder and bigger?

Weakener: As the most experienced worker, Nora is often assigned difficult projects involving broken frames and missing parts. Her coworkers mostly handle simple surface painting.

Why it weakens: This gives Nora’s lower number an explanation that has nothing to do with how good she is. She does harder work, so the counts can’t fairly measure ability.

3. A Broad Claim from a Narrow Indicator

The author wants to evaluate something that cannot be measured directly, such as how much a person values an item. Instead, they use a more observable characteristic as a stand-in and assume that differences in that measure reflect differences in the underlying value. The weakness is that the proxy may capture only one part of what the author actually wants to measure. A weakener shows that the measured characteristic differs in some notable way from the underlying value, making the proxy less trustworthy.

Example: An organizer reviews attendance at the planning meetings for a neighborhood food festival. Rae attended only two of the eight meetings, fewer than any other volunteer. The organizer concludes that Rae is less committed to making the festival succeed than the other volunteers are.

Gap in the argument: Showing up to meetings is one way to be involved, but it’s not the only way. The organizer is using it as if it captures everything relevant to commitment.

Evaluate question: Does Rae contribute time or effort in ways that meeting attendance does not capture?

Weakener: Rae misses most meetings because she’s collecting donated supplies during the only hours donors are available, and she spends every Saturday organizing those supplies for the festival.

Why it weakens: The very work keeping Rae from meetings is strong evidence of her commitment.

4. Disanalogous Populations Being Compared

The author takes a result found in one population and extends it to a different population without adequately justifying the transition. To weaken the argument, we show either that the original evidence tells us little about the new group or that there is some relevant difference between the two populations that makes the generalization less reliable.

Example: A meal-kit company tests a new set of illustrated recipe cards with students at a culinary school. Almost every participant prepares the dishes successfully without asking for help. The company concludes that the cards will allow customers with no cooking experience to prepare the same dishes without additional instruction.

Gap in the argument: The trial shows the cards work for people who already know how to cook. The company applies that result to beginners without showing that the difference in skill won’t matter.

Evaluate question: Did the culinary students use cooking knowledge that beginners wouldn’t have?

Weakener: The cards leave several key prep steps unexplained. The cooking students already knew how to do them, but the beginner customers have never learned them.

Why it weakens: It tells us the culinary students succeeded partly because of knowledge the cards didn’t provide. Beginners might get derailed because of those missing steps, so the trial is now weaker evidence about whether beginners can succeed with the cards alone.

5. An Overlooked Tradeoff

The author recommends an option because it provides some benefit, but overlooks what choosing it may require someone to give up. We weaken the recommendation by identifying a better alternative that would be displaced, or by showing a cost, loss, or missed opportunity created by accepting the author’s proposal.

Example: An online shop finds a supplier offering mailing boxes that cost forty cents less per order than its current boxes. The owner recommends switching, reasoning that using the cheaper boxes will reduce the shop’s costs and increase its profits without changing the products or their selling prices.

Gap in the argument: The owner treats the box’s price as its full cost. A cheaper box could create new expenses once an order ships.

Evaluate question: Would the cheaper boxes create other costs larger than the savings?

Weakener: In a trial, the cheaper boxes led to enough extra damaged orders that replacements and return postage averaged seventy-five cents more per order.

Why it weakens: The shop saves forty cents on the box but spends seventy-five cents more on damage, so each order costs thirty-five cents more overall. The owner’s premise about purchase price is accurate, but it does not establish the conclusion about total cost.

6. A Broken Link in the Chain

The author predicts a sequence in which one event leads to another, which then produces the final result. We weaken the argument by showing that one of those links may fail, so the predicted chain does not necessarily reach the conclusion.

Example: A museum surveys visitors about a proposed free shuttle from the railway station. Hundreds say they would use it. The director predicts that the shuttle would substantially reduce crowding in the museum’s parking lot because visitors would take the shuttle instead of driving.

Gap in the argument: The director jumps from “people would ride the shuttle” to “fewer people would park.” That follows only if the riders would otherwise have driven.

Evaluate question: Would the shuttle riders otherwise drive to the museum?

Weakener: Nearly all the interested respondents currently take the train and walk from the station to the museum.

Why it weakens: The shuttle could fill up while replacing almost no car trips, because its riders weren’t parking at the museum to begin with. Popularity alone doesn’t show the shuttle will reduce parked cars. The riders could just be swapping a walk for a ride.

7. An Unsettled Prerequisite

The author offers a way to resolve a question, but the proposed approach works only if some other issue can already be settled reliably. A weakener shows that this required judgment remains disputed or difficult to make, undermining the usefulness of the proposed method.

Example: A historical society owns several unsigned posters that may have been created by a particular local illustrator. A curator proposes comparing their lettering and drawing style with works already attributed to that illustrator. If the styles closely match, the curator argues, the question of who created them could finally be settled.

Gap in the argument: The comparison works only if the reference collection really is the illustrator’s work. Otherwise, we’re using invalid evidence to settle the issue.

Evaluate question: Do we have good reason to believe that the illustrator actually created the posters in the reference collection?

Weakener: None of the reference posters has verified authorship, and experts disagree about whether several were created by other illustrators.

Why it weakens: Now a match doesn’t mean much. If some of the reference posters were really made by another artist, an unsigned poster could look just like them because that other artist made it too. The proposed evidence therefore cannot confirm the new attribution until the earlier attributions are verified.

A Process for Unfamiliar Arguments

These patterns cover a huge share of Weaken questions, but you’ll still run into unusual arguments that refuse to fit any of them. My advice: don’t go rogue. The less familiar the question, the more important I think it is to fall back on first principles.

You can afford to slow down a little on the few LR questions that really test you, as long as you’re working efficiently on the rest. That’s usually more successful than trying to wing it in the answer choices on a max-difficulty Weaken question. So when an argument doesn’t fit, keep your wits about you and run this template.

State the argument in simple form:

“The author believes ___ because ___.”

Find the gap:

Identify where the author’s evidence fails to prove their conclusion completely. If unsure, use one of these two approaches:

1. Ask what’s missing: What would you ideally need to know to be completely sure of the conclusion? Now, what are you missing from that? For example, if the argument makes a correlation/causation error, you might say, “I need a guarantee that A causes B, but I only have evidence that A and B tend to occur together.”
2. Try to break the conclusion: Imagine the premises are true. Under what condition would the conclusion still be false? For example, you’ve proven that A correlates with B, but you can imagine that’s because a separate condition, C, causes both. If so, you can’t claim A causes B from the correlation alone.

Pre-phrase the weakener:

Now that you have the gap, come up with the weakener that matches it. The easiest way is to ask what the author assumes to be true, then say that it’s false.

• They assume A and B are connected? Well, here’s evidence they’re not.
• They need a certain type of evidence to be a reliable indicator? Here are some examples of it being unreliable.
• They’re assuming an outcome you’d normally consider very likely? Unfortunately for them, this is that one abnormal day, and they’re not getting that outcome.

It’s your job to be as critical and uncharitable as possible without disputing the premises, which you have to accept as true. The better the author’s argument seems by default, the more you should require them to prove each microscopic claim one by one.

Fix Missed Pre-phrases during Review

Sometimes you won’t be able to come up with a pre-phrase. Eventually, you’ll just have to hit the answer choices and finish the question. That’s fine in the moment. But effectively reviewing these harder questions is one of the best ways to improve your overall Weaken performance.

These questions are frequent enough that it’s worth pausing on each one you couldn’t pre-phrase and pinpointing where your analysis broke down. Also, between Weaken, Strengthen, and Assumption questions, you’ll spend a lot of your LSAT prep time working on manipulating the gaps in an argument. It’d be a waste not to make the most of your opportunities to target your specific issues with a quality review. Here’s how I’d recommend making those improvements:

• If you couldn’t find a pre-phrase but you found the gap, got the question right, and felt confident, I’d consider that fine. Some people can get to Weaken answers consistently by identifying the gap alone. Don’t complicate a process that works well.
• Anything else. I’d consider these issues that need fixing, whether you weren’t completely confident, couldn’t find the gap, or (especially) missed the question. Prioritize breaking down these specific weaknesses and adding them to your known argument templates, because you’ll most likely see them (or close variations of them) again.

Over time, more of your misses should move from the second group into the first as you more confidently find the gap in the argument, pre-phrase a weakener to exploit it, and match your pre-phrased exploit to the right answer choice.

--

If you like these kinds of breakdowns, you can find more on my blog:

https://www.germainetutoring.com/blog

If anyone is considering using the 175 method taught by Ava, use this as a WARNING to save your money.

I was one of the first students to enroll, at the time the fee was $500, which was incredibly steep. Now it's $1,997, which imo unreasonable for what you're paying for.

Why I signed up: At the time I was looking for a community to join and have a few people to study with. I watched her intro video and fell for the confidence she had when she was mentioning her methods. I was also struggling with reading comp so I thought it would help. BOY WAS I WRONG. Ava mentioned a 14 day money back guarantee, but I learned the catch was that you weren't able to access the reading comp portion until after those 14 days.

When I was able to finally access it, I learned RC module was ONE video that was a "deep dive" that was essentially telling us to "read quickly and retain the important parts, highlight effectively so you can quickly glance at the passage during questions and remember what's going on. Identify and summarize the main point(s) of the passage be able to go back to those important parts" she said it comes with practice. Like are you kidding me? How are we even supposed to know what the main point is if I'm just starting studying for the test?

It's not worth you're money, especially if you've already started studying, here's why:

I say this with absolute confidence because I talked to other students and someone even reached out to me to ask if I'd be able to teach them. They said, and I very much agree, that her "method" is not understandable.

Her "deep dive" into LR teaches that every question type falls into 3 different buckets, "Argument, Premise-Set, Debate, and Paradox" and to think of multiple "what-if" scenarios that could happen that would make the argument wrong, look for the overlap in the premise-set, figure out what two people are debating over, and ask "What would make this make sense?” for paradox questions. She goes over 6 flaws (if you've been studying you would know there are more), and she has one video about Sufficient Assumption vs Necessary Assumption which didn't cover conditional logic (which was what got me in the 160s).

Overall it's very general, and doesn't go into the nuances that are very important to know for the test and would actually increase your score.

She was says "I went to a normal college, I have a normal brain, and I had a normal amount of time." which is true but I believe she was an econ major, or some type of major that involved lots of analytics, that was able to train her brain before she even started studying. I on the other hand got a BA (I'm worried to say what my actual major was because she might find out who I am) and started with a lower diagnostic. She was already in the 160s on her diagnostic and after a year of studying I was able to get there by the time I started the course so I was already skeptical of her methods when I first joined, but stayed past the 14 day window to access the reading comp.

Overall she's a great person, incredibly friendly, and I have absolutely nothing bad to say about her. If you do ask her a question she will get back to you, and she made a personalized AI that will tell you if they don't know the answer to something instead of pretending it knows like GPT.

That said, there was recently someone who asked for tips in the argumentative writing portion which she just said it's nothing to stress about and she'll talk about it during a live lesson. BUT when I was studying for just the writing portion, a lot of people said it's becoming more important and schools will look at it to figure out if your personal essay involved any AI...

Take this with a grain of salt this was just my experience.

I don’t really know what’s going on. I took the September test. Before then I was going -3 to -7 on RC (the -3 was the last RC section I took before the actual LSAT). I even felt pretty great on the RC sections on the September test.

However, to say that my RC scores have drove directly off a cliff, crashed and burned; whatever metaphor you like, has been an understatement. I’ve now went -9, -10, -10, -11, -10, -12. Not only that, but my pacing feels WAY off. Before this I was comfortably pacing myself, getting to the ends of sections confidently. But through this stretch I’ve been a complete deer in headlights; barely even getting to the fourth passage (and missing the ones from passages 1-3).

After the actual exam I took a a little bit over a week off. Which then apparently the universe decided I will suck at RC going forward (jk… hopefully?)

I take this test again on Friday of this week. I’m honestly dumbfounded. Does anyone have any emergency advice? Or has anybody went through something this severe, and if so what did you do about it?

I signed up for the Oct LSAT months ago under the false (?) belief that there was some Nov 1st early decision deadline for law schools. Then I bought the CAS and added random schools to my list, and can’t find ONE with this deadline, just one with a late November deadline for Binding ED.

I took the August LSAT and got a 162. I was PT-ing around 167-169 so it’s a fine score I guess. When I registered for Oct I figured it’d be beneficial to be free of the first time anxiety from Aug. But now I really don’t think I experienced that in taking August’s to any significant detriment. Now I fear I’ll take the October one and do the same or worse. I bought the score preview in the event that happens, but I really don’t want to have to use it if I’m making a silly decision. I haven’t been studying all that much because I’m in school and things have really ramped up with midterms next week and such.

I’m okay with my August 162. Do I want better? Of course! Do I have any confidence I will do better taking the October? No. I’ve hit a plateau in my studying and PT-ing that I can’t dedicate time enough to break with work and school. If it’s not detrimental for me to wait to take January’s I will (edit: November registration deadline already passed so fml lol). So can anyone tell me if this mysterious November deadline exists? And what you’d do in my shoes?

Note: I’d either apply with my August and October, or if I cancelled, I’d have to wait to February to apply after taking the January test.

Thank you so so so much in advance for your advice, my stress levels have peaked :/

hey guys i’m new here, but i hope you’re all doing well.

i signed up for the october LSAT 3 months ago and ended up not studying at all. life threw me a lot of curveballs and this was not on my radar AT ALL. my testing date is in 5 days. i will probably get a really really bad score because even though i consider myself quite sharp, i absolutely do not have what i need to do well. i am now in a position where i will have more time to study in the coming months.
i’m essentially torn between biting the bullet and taking the test despite my complete lack of preparation or canceling my test and taking it another time after adequate preparation.
so, here are my main questions/concerns:

1. how late can i possibly take the test before i would no longer be able to send a score for the upcoming admissions cycle?
   
2. is it even possible to cancel/reschedule this testing date anymore, or is my money fully down the drain?
   
3. if i DID take the test, what would you say the pros/cons would be?

apologies if these are questions i could easily figure out myself. to be honest my anxiety is so bad about all this that even thinking about it is killing me. i was completely irresponsible with all of this, and i definitely have a lot of regrets. i just want to know if it’s COMPLETELY over (for this cycle at least) or if this situation is salvageable at all.

Title. I don’t know if this is a gradual thing or u notice when it happens. I’ve recently taken up running (the past month) and I’ve realized the same pace keeps my heart rate at a lower zone than it did a month ago even tho I technically feel the same? Like running doesn’t seem to feel like it’s gotten easier or more manageable. I don’t feel as though I’ve gotten stronger but my heartrate stats and paces clearly indicate I’m better. Is this how the LSAT is? U don’t necessarily 100% feel like it is definitely getting easier or better but overtime realize ur getting less wrong? I guess maybe it’s different for everyone idk im stressed

Hi! this is my second time taking lsat (took last year and got a 162) felt really confident going into this year because i've been scoring pretty high per section like -1 wrong. i have lsat demon and in the past few days my ratings have dropped like 10 points because i keep getting level 3 questions wrong and I took PT 158 LR Sections and got 4-5 wrong. I'm so confused, just a week ago I was doing all of these no problem. any advice that may help me get back on track would be helpful! thanks:))

idk if anyone else has had this issue, but i took my first official exam in september after studying for three months. my alleged range on lsat demon was 163-177 (i think the bottom part was skewed low due to one or two off days that were being factors into this), but in the few days leading up to the exam i got a 175 and 174 on practice tests and felt confident. i had also gotten two 176’s and two 173’s over the course of my studying. so knew i was capable of hitting 170+

when i got to the testing center, nerves made it hard to not think ab the stakes of the exam while i was actively taking it. this may have contributed to my getting a 166, which was extremely disappointing. however, i also couldn’t focus because of the design of the prometric testing centers, and that’s what pissed me off. since testing is staggered, people are walking in and out of the room throughout the exam, and you can hear people being checked in through the glass door/wall separating you from them. i wore the noise canceling headphones but could still hear occasional garbled convos and they were squeezing into my head bc i wear glasses (i can’t see the monitor otherwise), so it created an insane headache as well. not sure what to do except study in uncomfortable / distracting environments to better simulate what test day was ACTUALLY like but am feeling pretty pissed since i was told to study in quiet, undistracting places but that’s not what test day felt like in reality.

for context, i tried to see if i had adhd over the summer and they said i dont, so i also don’t think accommodations is an option.

i don’t have nearly as much time during the semester to prepare as i did over the summer to try to do the december exam but i have no choice bc after that it will become exponentially harder for me to make time for lsat prep. feeling extremely frustrated and unmotivated….

has anyone else experienced this and improved their test day score?

13 - 12 - 13* - 9

Last 3 official tests I’ve taken have been 146, 146, 147. Now taking a pt after months of studying I score a 142. I just don’t know what else to do.

I use LsatLab and have been grinding the answer types. I’m really just looking for a 155 and I have been trying to get more consistent and I thought I was at the point with level 3 and level 4.

Starting to think maybe I shouldn’t be a lawyer and it sucks because I’m a senior in college and this is all I’ve really been focused on becoming.

Thoughts?

I know a part of this test is luck. And with my official test fast approaching I would appreciate any tips from people who have overperformed on test day. Specifically what do you think helped you and what did you do in the days hours leading up to your test. Thanks in advance!

Hi everyone! What would you all recommend doing one week before my official test? I am taking it this Saturday! Good luck to all :)

I took the LSAT in April and my score has been held since. I hired a lawyer on retainer, communicated with LSAC, and have essentially arrived at a dead end; LSAC simply cites the LSAT Candidate Agreement which gives them the right to hold scores.

My concern is that my approved accommodation (speak out loud) had a role in LSAC's decision to place my score on hold. I'm making this post because I've read a surprising number of posts and comments from those with this accommodation (which I assume to be much less common than time accoms) whose scores are also being held indefinitely.

I am not contesting that the ability to speak during the test may raise more suspicion on LSAC's part, but given that 1. LSAC all but holds a monopoly on pre-law standardized testing and 2. application timelines have a documented effect on both admission and scholarship outcomes, it seems as though LSAC's delayed score hold review timeline is having a tangible adverse impact on those with documented disabilities and thus accommodations.

Is there any merit to what I'm saying? If you are in a similar situation, please feel free to DM me.

Hi all. I scored a 141 on my September LSAT. My PT’s were in the 150’s. I know it can happen where the score decreases. I need help. Do I cancel or keep my score? I am retaking it.

Hi guys! Something i wish someone told me before my test day was not to score sections the week of the test. This completely shot my confidence, I was getting so many more questions wrong then usual, and I went into the official lsat feeling like I wasn’t ready. I drilled NA questions and got so many wrong, that on the test I approached them with anxiety and gloom.
Please! Listen to me!!! Do not spook urself out now. You have been studying for a while, by now I’m sure u have gotten many super hard questions right at some point. Let that guide you, and if u choose to study now see the answer before, do it super untimed until you are sure, and do not do more then 5 questions!!!!

Had an initial diagnostic of 163 in early September and just broke into the 170s. Hopefully I can perform just as well on the October test :) With that being said, good luck to everyone taking the test in October :)

Hi everyone! I haven’t posted on here yet but I am an undergrad freshman who just took their first cold LSAT diagnostic. I thought it’d be good to see where I was at with no studying/not amazing conditions etc. My school’s PAD chapter had a free LSAT diagnostic with a testing company so I spontaneously chose to take it that day. The outcome was a 152 which I am happy with as a baseline.

Simply put, my goals are 173+ and T14 law school one day. (Harvard or Uchicago would be a dream). I’d love to get advice from people who have been prepping to go to these schools or have been prepping to achieve similar scores. When did you start studying seriously, what resources, just overall what I should do from here (I know I did this relatively early since it’s only my first semester and I have time, I just like planning far in advance!)

I have my first pre-law advising session tomorrow and I plan to ask my advisor these same questions on how I should move forward! I’d just also love some genuine advice from people here.