"Oh no he came for my throat, let me just act like this was my plan all along"

I'm kendrick and you're drake. This is fun for me. There's no rage here, only disappointment in you.

I think you "trolling" on an educational platform, coupled with your fantastic spelling of "bait", tells me everything I need to know about you. Best of luck in your application to the University of Phoenix law school. It's even funnier that you've wiped your pfp and name, but J.Y.'s still waiting for you to wipe his!

The great thing about modern-day string theorists, and quite frankly any well-structured product or service, is that there is a consistency to their methods, so that for whatever problem exists, there is a consistent method to reach that answer. Providing answer explanations as a means of teaching people does not effectively reach this goal. But I can see that 7sage has been working quite well for you, because you've supported your conclusion with one premise that is a well-layered ad hominem. I'm sure this precise reasoning of yours will translate well when you take the test!

Can you strengthen, not weaken, this platform? Lmk how it goes when people find out that the powerscore bibles do exactly what JY's situationally convenient rules do not. ;) (I know because I'm reading them, and returned to this question and got it right.) Maybe after that you can take your well-earned break by taking your HR-approved profile picture, printing it on some tissue paper, and wiping JY's rear with it after he defecates.

Hope this helps!

oh okay, so in THIS question the strength of the analogy matters, but in the previous module the focus solely mattered on the conclusion, and not on the analogy.

JY LOVES to make rules convenient to different questions. What a waste of time 7sage is.

Yeah I don't like the way that he phrased it either. But here's how I thought of it. (currently 151-- if anyone disagrees w me comment)

Hopefully you visualized the first sentence like this: Business demand (we'll call this A) -> New Technologies (call this B), or whatever.

The second sentence further explains the relationship between them. It says that business demand (A) is low, but new technology (B) is high. This sentence also gives the idea of "supply and demand" in saying that demand for the technology (B) is high, but the businesses (A) are few. Can you see that?

The final sentence says that "the acceleration of technological change" (increase in B) can cause suppliers (which is referencing the business demand because we've established it as the supplier; A) can cause both (A and B) to fail.

The main implication for this is that damage can be done on both sides. And answer choice B says that.

So, in reference to your questions, I think what I would do if I were you is to focus on seeing the conditional relationships present here. Once you get that (which is a big thing-- conditionals tell you the structure of the relationship between subjects), you can assign details to them (like knowing A references supply, acceleration of change; do the same thing for B).

your thinking is right, though. failure is ≠ not benefit from economic growth. My guess is you inferred that failure and growth meant the same thing? But I think this is missing the point of the passage.

For your last question of when to focus on the meaning of the words. When the words change the meaning of the sentence (I visualize things), thats when you pay attention. If they're not changing the meaning, no need. That's probably the simplest way I can put it.

You got this man

I really hate how JY trashes the wrong answer choices. People thought those questions were right and here you are trashing them

See, here's the thing though. You tell us not to conflate "lack of rain" with "below average", but expect us to conflate "lack of rain" with "drought"? In the same way we don't know what level "below average" is, we also don't know what "drought" is. Sure, you can say that a drought is more defined, but this is literally a bullshit game of semantics at this point.

I keep getting all this shit wrong. fucking sucks

The reason I chose E instead of A was because of the word "WE". Does "WE" refer to humans? or just the general idea that action should be taken? I took the latter idea, and chose E based off of that. Why should I believe that "WE" means humans? Maybe it's the obvious choice, but I want it derived.

#help

I think that's the entire point. With these MSS/inference questions we get a bunch of sentences that might be related, might not be, and our goal is to understand the connection/implication between them. THAT's what these questions are looking for. If you read these questions and then say "well, that's assuming,,," and then connect one premise to another that gives you a pretty strong starting place to figure out where to go.

I think "can't therefore don't" should be a lesson by itself. That's really important here.

I also (in my prescriptive opinion) think this question starts to move outside the scope. of what is actually being tested for with the information on pheromones

So this is interesting. Could we not say that for the above argument (listed below):

A → B

A —m→ C

B ←s→ C

could we not say instead that MOST B's are C's?

ACB

ACB

ACB

AB

AB

What got me on this question was not my conditional thinking, but literally the language of the answer choices. I need a module on how to read and pick apart the language that the LSAT makers use to make answer choices difficult/more(or less) appealing.

Cool. So what happens if we say "If turtle, then ninja. Plato is not a turtle."

We could only say that Plato is not a turtle. We couldn't say anything else, whether Plato is a ninja, etc. We don't have enough information.

Do questions like this come up on the LSAT?

I wanted to put this here for anyone having trouble with #4, specifically with the subject of "formation" vs. "hurricanes".

As people, we intuitively see what word seems more like a noun between these two. It's hurricanes. We see "formation" as a verb more, because think about it... hurricanes form. It makes less intutive sense for "formation" to be the noun.

However, when you think about "formation" not as the action "i.e. hurricanes form" and instead as the presence of the hurricane itself (the "structure" of a hurricane) it makes a lot more sense. The structure of what? the hurricane.

The difficulty in this question came down to identifying verbs that have turned into nouns as the subject. But I'm sure this is a big thing that's important to master.

I've thought about these questions that ask for main conclusion like this. After I read the entire thing, I make a sentence starting with "Therefore...", and that helps me a lot to really get to what the passage is saying. Can anyone spot any problems with this approach? Or is it sound?

Is there like a common structure to passive voice? how does it impact us taking the LSAT