@ currently aiming for Dec 2017 exam, but quite likely that i'll be taking February 2018 as well! So count me in!

In comparison to all the other AC D) seems to be the most correct one, but I am still struggling to accept it due to the fact it says "any city incinerator." Our stimulus here only tells us a single city/ the city, how can we generalize to any city's incinerator? Maybe this different city can have these amazing engineers who can help reduce waste of resources. Can someone explain this?

I struggled with accepting B at first, but after listening to JY's explanation helped solve my initial hesitance on choosing B.

Initially, I struggled to accept B) because "some workers are caused to produce high-quality work"- I was thinking that nothing in the premise tells me about "workers" and high-quality work. I only know "most workers do not have every item judged for quality." However, the first sentence of B) states "by having every piece of their work evaluated" is referential phrasing to freelance writers ("but each piece a freelance writer authors is evaluated. That is why...such high-quality work") and "their" specifically is a referential phrasing for "some workers" ("some workers are caused to produce high-quality work" so for this specific question the subset "some workers" can include "freelance writers."

Did anyone else think the same way?

I also struggled to accept A) at first when I did it, but I'm trying to parse it out now and it makes more sense. I'm not completely happy with it, but I do think it's the best amongst the rest.

A) I really struggled with accepting "fewer" since if the pigweed plants are plowed only at night, then there is no exposure so the seeds do not germinate. When I think of "fewer" I think of it as a comparison of e.g 4 seeds vs. 10 seeds, thus 4 is fewer than10. I struggled with A) since the comparison is 0 (none because no exposure= no germination) vs. X amount greater than 0. However, I guess whatever number of seeds is getting exposure during the day will be greater than 0, thus there is fewer in comparison of plowing only at night than during the day.

I initially chose D because I was like heck yeah the stimulus just said "churned up to the surface and redeposited just under the surface" to trigger germination. But, that is not necessary/ required as the last line says we just need prolonged darkness + exposure to sunlight. Heck, redepositing under the surface could be a totally unnecessary step of the gardener. It could happen, but it is not required for germination to occur as long as prolonged darkness and exposure to sunlight is already met.

Thanks for replies! @ I am planning on doing the same. I am going to finish my part on Games with a Twist and go to Flaw Method of Reasoning, and just put trust on JY that there is a point to the new change up. Based on the post Dillon posted, I am assuming the new RC lessons JY added switched the rearrangement and, thus, rearranged all the other sections as well?

Mine has also been rearranged. I was working on Games Section just yesterday now it's telling me to do Flawed Method of Reasoning. Same spot as you @. How should we proceed with the rearrangement? What was the purpose of the rearrangement?

Hmm... I got tripped up by the word "solely" for answer C. Can someone explain this further? Pat never refers to communicating solely by e-mail. Pat jus argues e-mail → anonymity → intimacy. How do we know Pat will support the statement that "solely" by e-mail is possible? I feel like i'll need to make a big jump in the inference...

@

Thanks for your tips! I can always count on you and the 7Sage community for good advice!

So last week I finished CC and I have done 2 untimed PTs (I know I shouldn't be doing untimed but I really needed a motivational boost that my hardcore 3 months of CC and my lack of summer plans is going somewhere). I got 159 untimed which was by far the best grade I have ever gotten (I started with a 139 timed...it has been a rough path for me rip). I am doing the Sept LSAT just so I won't be putting all eggs in one basket because I get really bad test anxiety. I am prepared to do Dec and Feb as well and more if needed (recently changed the rule about 3 in 2 years). I'm Canadian and most Canadian law schools take the highest mark so I am not too worried about my possibly poor mark for Sept (I know I'm not ready). My goal is to get 160+. I am okay with getting 155-160 for Sept and move my way up in Dec and Feb, respectively, to a final mark between 164-168. Moving forward, would you suggest that I do Intensive Drilling and TIMED PTs (with BR)? I want to work on my timing (especially because I get anxiety under intense stress) and to check whether I am getting the fundamentals right with PT. How many PTs should I do a week with Drilling would you suggest?

I fell for the trap- 3C.

The question is asking what the author would most likely agree to the statement about the earth's ozone layer found in lines 10-15. I kept C as a contender because even though it says directed attention away from solving it, line 49 says "but this position dodges the issue"- however "this" is referring to easily quantifiable terms (line 47).

So is it wrong because we do not know for certain that the appearance of prosperity in the earth's ozone layer would direct attention away from solving it? Can someone speak to this?

D) is the correct answer choice because it says it threatens rather than contributes to prosperity. We know the author would agree with this because in line 20 the author views prosperity that is not measured strictly definitional and that monetary terms may damage quality of life (so threaten) and their environment. The author would more likely view D than C.

I'll be interested ! :)

Very interested!!

Hmm what tripped me up was "historical fact." Is that an implicit assumption that we have to make just because the photography would have (past tense/ historical) displaced painting as an art form if people only appreciate exact replicas? I guess I struggle to see it as a "historical fact" or that it is factual for the matter. Can someone explain this?

The stimulus is trying to draw a relationship between/ assumption that large amounts of ferrous material and small amounts of co2 can promote an increase of algae (FM --> increase in algae). Learn that algae absor co2. The stim is drawing a conclusion that ferrous material and co2 promote a great increase in population of algae/ diatoms. Our job is to weaken this or to show a case that this even if the sufficent happens (ferrous material and co2) that it does not mean that the necessary happens (increase in algae).

A): Okay if they have been unchanged than doesn't it strengthen this relationship?

B): If this can be supported today of the findings from before, doesn't that also strengthen it?

C): Classic alternative cause. Yes there is another alternative, but that does not weaken the relationship. Could be another correlation does not necessary mean this alternative cause is CAUSAL.

D): We learn here additional information that diatoms leave shells when they die. If the shells are not found when diatoms die it shows that the sufficient occurred (increase in ferrous material) without the necessary occurring (increase in algae population). In other words, the even with large amounts of ferrous material there is no increase in algae (lack of diatoms). Thus, weakening the relationship.

conditional reasoning in weakening qs. look for an answer that attacks idea of the necessary condition (increase in the population of Antarctic algae). Show that sufficient can happen without the necessary being true, thus weakening the relationship.

E) Okay...so not harmed by large increase to ferrous material so that could mean that increase of algae could still happen.

I mistakenly chose A at first. The stimulus is talking about a review of medical studies and not medical studies itself. If this was a study about normal coffee-drinker and the patients (e.g normal coffee-drinkers) were not part of the study, then making the conclusion about normal coffee drinkers would be incorrect. But, this is a review of medical studies (e.g could be peer-review for publication) and A) simply restates the stimulus and does nothing to weaken the assumption made here about not having heart issues and coffee being safe to one's overall health.

JY wrote A ←s→ create in order to express feelings, but "often" shouldn't be most? So A ‑m→ create in order to express feelings?

I think C was too quickly dismissed as well. Can someone explain why C is incorrect?

Is it wrong for me to diagram it as: CN → LSO → D

LT→LSO

Since someone who has been lied has also lied to someone or other (I combined the two ideas). I still ended up with CN → D. Is my diagram ok?

I am finding it difficult to eliminate 16 A. During BR, I switched from 16E to 16A because it says "natural resources are discovered to replace them," which I thought meant (Line20) "limited capacity to regenerate raw material," which is one of the reasons why the economy is dangerous, no?

I also didn't really understand what JY meant in his explanation that they had "similar views on the basic goal an economy must need" for 20 E, thus being wrong. I understand how E is wrong because the recommendation mentioned is LATER not earlier.. but they (referential phrasing to the steady state and neoclassical) has differing views on the basic goal an economy must meet...like yeah differing goals because of optimal sizes for economy, no?

I am confused by answer C. The stimulus says "we can never achieve brain transplant." I understand that the gap that "degenerative brain disorder will form an ever-increasing proportion for the population" is assuming that that we can never achieve brain transplant, thus increasing the population of degenerative brain disorders, but how is it the answer c) that degenerative brain disorder will be curable with brain transplants. Didn't the stimulus just say we can never achieve brain transplants?

I definitely got tricked by question 8) and did not even spot it in the BR. "Who upon the formation of the union" occurs before the child company withholding their workers' wages, and it is the child company who withheld the wages not the parents company.

Hi everyone!!

Starting in November works for me! I'm done the CC but currently going over areas that i'm not completely certain with and over some important fundamentals. I think going over as much material together before 2018 will be fantastic! However, I am open to Dec if that works better with the group.

Sun and Mon after 5pm PST works for me!

Ok...this question gave me a headache. I went back to CC and looked at DeMorgan's Law. Correct me if I am wrong here.

From the stimulus, we find out that it is a "not both" relationship. So it's I←s→/W or W←s→/I.

Our task is to find out what is MBF.

C) No one is both wise and intelligent. So Not [W and I]. DeMorgan's Law/Contrapositive of it is W or I = W/I or /W I. Which follows through our "not both" stimulus. We have one of W or I. So this answer is a CBT.

D) No one is either wise or intelligent. So Not [W or I]. DeMorgan's Law/ Contrapositive of it is /W and /I. That is a MBF. In our "not both" relationship we need at least 1 of W or I.

After watching JY's video, E makes sense. However, I am still struggling to understand C. Is it because P→18+ and LV→18+, thus we cannot conclude there's not overlap between P and LV? So we cannot conclude "some professors are neither legal voters nor brilliant people?