Greetings @ ,

In order for JY to record a tutorial video, he must snort three hefty lines of crack cocaine. If JY is instead doing weed, then he is not recording a video. Let me explain.

In the first scenario, we see that a condition that must be met in order for JY to record a video is the consumption of cocaine. No other requirements are listed, and for all we know he must be high on bath salts and other goodies in addition to the crack. We simply don't know. But, we do know one necessity to record a video is 7sage premium cocaine. It is a necessary assumption.

In the second sentence, JY doing weed and him not recording a video are directly connected with an if/then structure. The two are linked closer, and knowledge of an herbivorous JY is enough to know he is also not recording. However, keep in mind that although it is true if we know JY is on weed he must also not be recording, we cannot say for certain that if he isn't recording he is definitely on weed. Other causes may be responsible. Nevertheless, this is a sufficient assumption.

Simply put, both necessaries and sufficient only work one way. Knowing the conclusion occurred does not guarantee the assumption. The difference is, knowing a necessary assumption took place does not guarantee the conclusion, but knowing a sufficient assumption to be true does.

I also recommend JY's videos ;)

My response to any skepticism I've noticed in this thread with respect to the "midnight mash" is twofold:

As a psychology major, I am aptly qualified to make statements about the tendencies of the human brain. True, we have much to learn about it, but recent Oxford studies have revealed the malleability of the "semi-subconsious mind", that is to say, the part of the brain that transitions from consciousness to subconsciousness. An apropos example would be hypnosis. The effectiveness of the midnight mash resides in the stimulation of a relatively active semi-subconscious mind only minutes after waking. If this region of the brain is engaged in logical reasoning, vast mental gains are to be had.

Secondly, I was privileged to be a part of an elite study group last year for the LSAT. As a spring-quarter sophomore I was involved in a weekly study group with three junior-year students, each driving an average of four hours to attend a common location. At least once a month we engaged in a midnight mash, and reaped substantial logical reasoning benefits from each. This technique is tested and certified.

Hi!

170+ scorer here, hopefully I can shed some light on your situation.

First, consistency with the in/out games often resides in ones dedication to limiting splits within the game boards. If this is something you struggle with, more complex game pieces will be your godsend.

The 170 bar is an elusive one, both mentally and physically. In your situation much will be decided in your logical reasoning--you will live or die there. One technique that is not well-known but nonetheless effective is the "midnight mash." You set your alarm clock for 3 or 4am and start a logical reasoning section within 2 minutes of waking up. This will train your semi-subconscious logical reasoning center of your brain and vastly improve your focus. Used by me and many 170+ colleagues of mine.

Good luck!