heh weiner

ice cream sushi ranch pickle smoothie 🤤

I started reading these in JY's voice and now I'm actually getting them correct wtf

A necessary assumption will prevent your argument from being completely false:

You are trying to survive an apocolypse. the necessary assumption is that you have food, since without food, you're dead

A sufficient assumption will make your argument true:

You are trying to survive an apocolypse. the sufficient assumption is that you are in a stacked bunker. it has everything you need, you definitely will survive.

I didn't choose B because I saw "not adequately understood" as not the same thing as "yet to be studied" since if you don't really understand the side effects, wouldn't that imply that some study occurred that people don't quite understand? Because why would you not adequately understand something if that something wasn't even studied yet? That word confused me

Reading answer A got me feeling introspective

In my head, I was thinking that if "debate over controversial issues draws the attention of the public", then wouldn't these newspapers NOT challenge false claims in their article? If they don't challenge the claims, then more people will be talking about those claims since if they were simply proven false, then people wouldn't give a second thought about it

Am I weird for thinking this?

They used professional drivers vs other people as an analogy to competent drivers vs not competent, so why would the officer be talking about the professional driver if the main discussion / conclusion of the motorcoach was about the competent driver???

Wouldn't this being an analogy mean that any answers discussing the "professional drivers" would be ruled out since that's not what the officer is talking about, but rather is he talking about the competent drivers??

I don't know what to believe anymore with these assumptions

I also chose C but this is the best thing I can think of in the simplest terms possible since the explanation never does enough for me:

C:

It's just saying that many students aren't sure of their major choice when they join.

This can apply to any major, not just chem, so then why would it even matter?

If it affects everything, it essentially affects nothing.

E:

This on the other hand is saying that over time, people that chose chem have been slowly not liking chem.

THIS can explain a decline in chem majors over time a lot more specifically compared to C.

It seems so obvious to me now but I guess I just have to load up on caffeine and make sure I understand everything the first couple times I read it lol

Is it just me who does well in these "You Try" sections but not too well in the Adaptive Drills?

I feel like the content they are teaching really adheres to the certain problems they give, but for the drill problems, it's a lot harder to actually adapt what we learned to answer them.

Do we just keep practicing for the Adaptive Drills until we get better? At that point, what is worth practicing? It's only my first week learning the LSAT so maybe I'm just thinking too much and need to practice EVERYTHING more?