I find it crucial that we read these conditionals very carefully and pay attention to detail. Sometimes it's not a lack of understanding of how to solve the question, but instead, it's the mistakes we make with the information we write down. (at least for me haha)
I agree, definitely tripped me up for a few minutes after I finished the question trying to better understand why B was wrong. Reading the explanation after the video helped a ton but phew it's making me work my brain haha.
I got this in 1 minute somehow, which was because I managed to see through the logic and find the trap they set.
The stim tells us that:
An exemplary record (ER) is necessary for eligibility, and without one, you cannot be eligible (note where it said but not otherwise).
Exceeding reasonable expectations is one way to become eligible, but it never said it is the only way.
Any option that doesn't tell us that Penn doesn't have an ER is automatically false. C and D are out.
This why A is correct and both B and E are wrong. They just tell us that Penn hasn't done something to exceed expectations. What if another rule for eligibility is 20 years of service? He could qualify that way, but we don't know that.
LSAC preys on your mental battery by overloading you with wrong options that look similar and have a lot of words but only tiny differences to wear you down when you try to differentiate. They also do it so you waste time, then panic over the wasted time, and do even worse. Not just LSAC too, lawyers try to trip themselves up all the time in real life too. Hell, one day we might be the ones laying traps for other lawyers.
So just relax. Don't let them get to you. This is why we (hopefully) get paid the big bucks.
Im a little confused I initially had A in mind as the correct answer but then double checked myself when reading the conclusion because I thought to myself if Officer Franklin and Penn are in the conversation to get the award shouldn't they have both already met the eligibility requirements and now the only thing that separates each candidate is the saving lives and exceeding expectations part that is required to save a life.
My question is how to do you read the conclusion and automatically assume he doesn't meet the initial eligibility requirements.
This might be silly, but when I started degrading answer choices, i started getting more right. I.e. “well you just sound dumb” that helped me here where I was able to get rid of answer choices c,d, and e. I was stuck in between b and A, but ultimately went with A because of the exemplary record part. The “not otherwise” part also kept my attention because even if they saved ones live, they need to have the exemplary record. Made this 5 star difficulty my bitch!!!!
306 comments
am i the only one here who just got way too unnecessarily confused by "but not otherwise" LOL
yes I was also focusing on that while being confused by A and E ACs lol, you are not alone.
@mikaylaricciotti335 Me too omg
0 for 4 in this chapter right now feeling like a dumbass
edit: ok coming back to this, i started to pick up the patterns and did really well after this. If you're reading this comment you got this!!!!!
"but not otherwise" confused tf out of me
Thought E was 100% correct. Got scammed again.
I ate this one up
I find it crucial that we read these conditionals very carefully and pay attention to detail. Sometimes it's not a lack of understanding of how to solve the question, but instead, it's the mistakes we make with the information we write down. (at least for me haha)
cooked
yea these are not my strongest and need to go back to the basics to figure these mfs out
"but not otherwise" is crazy
0 for 4 this is getting bleak
@emmalemon real
wondering how i will do all this is like less then a minute lol
Only took me 10 business days to answer the question but a win is a win
Damn im getting killed on these questions
this section will be the death of me im about to crashout
this effed me up
I GOT IT RIGHT FASTER THAN THE TARGET TIME WE ARE SOOOOOO BACK
This was super easy for me, and I'm not particularly a whizz.
It just made sense for A to be right because it states at the beginning that you must have an exemplary record, and Penn did not.
God is good.
I love God and you giving glory to Him!
God is good!
You are blessed and I am happy for you. Even with infinite time and the responses, I am taking forever on this question. I've got a ways to go.
"but not otherwise"??????
I feel dumb getting this question wrong after seeing the explanation haha. but now I know what "but not otherwise" means.
pls bro no
Understanding that A is correct is one thing, that's reasonably straight forward.
Explaining why B is wrong is a *
I agree, definitely tripped me up for a few minutes after I finished the question trying to better understand why B was wrong. Reading the explanation after the video helped a ton but phew it's making me work my brain haha.
I got this in 1 minute somehow, which was because I managed to see through the logic and find the trap they set.
The stim tells us that:
An exemplary record (ER) is necessary for eligibility, and without one, you cannot be eligible (note where it said but not otherwise).
Exceeding reasonable expectations is one way to become eligible, but it never said it is the only way.
Any option that doesn't tell us that Penn doesn't have an ER is automatically false. C and D are out.
This why A is correct and both B and E are wrong. They just tell us that Penn hasn't done something to exceed expectations. What if another rule for eligibility is 20 years of service? He could qualify that way, but we don't know that.
LSAC preys on your mental battery by overloading you with wrong options that look similar and have a lot of words but only tiny differences to wear you down when you try to differentiate. They also do it so you waste time, then panic over the wasted time, and do even worse. Not just LSAC too, lawyers try to trip themselves up all the time in real life too. Hell, one day we might be the ones laying traps for other lawyers.
So just relax. Don't let them get to you. This is why we (hopefully) get paid the big bucks.
Got this wrong because i didn't know what 'but not otherwise' meant .....
Same
ahh so the first part of the stimulus is saying its necessary to have an exemplary record, to get the reward.
and the second part is saying, it is sufficient for the reward if you exceeded expectations and saved a life AND are already eligible.
Im a little confused I initially had A in mind as the correct answer but then double checked myself when reading the conclusion because I thought to myself if Officer Franklin and Penn are in the conversation to get the award shouldn't they have both already met the eligibility requirements and now the only thing that separates each candidate is the saving lives and exceeding expectations part that is required to save a life.
My question is how to do you read the conclusion and automatically assume he doesn't meet the initial eligibility requirements.
I have the same question
This might be silly, but when I started degrading answer choices, i started getting more right. I.e. “well you just sound dumb” that helped me here where I was able to get rid of answer choices c,d, and e. I was stuck in between b and A, but ultimately went with A because of the exemplary record part. The “not otherwise” part also kept my attention because even if they saved ones live, they need to have the exemplary record. Made this 5 star difficulty my bitch!!!!