User Avatar
ArthurWasilewski
Joined
Dec 2025
Subscription
Core

Admissions profile

LSAT
Not provided Goal score: 165
CAS GPA
Not provided
1L START YEAR
2026

Discussions

User Avatar
ArthurWasilewski
Thursday, Apr 2

@rmuriel66 Yes, that kind of sounds how this logic was structured. I should have known better because in my previous career, operators like can, must, shall, will, may--they all had very specific meanings in understanding policy and, for the life of me, I simply forgot all of those meanings!

1
User Avatar
ArthurWasilewski
Edited Friday, Mar 20

Speaking of grammar parsing, and therefore being the least popular guy at the party, the first sentence says member CAN receive a coupon. My mind interpreted that to also mean that non-members DON'T receive the coupon. I was about to select the correct answer when the thought came rushing into my head and crushed my dreams...fucking Pat..anywho, is CAN interchangeable with MAY? Did my brain make CAN too heavy of a lift by thinking CAN is interchangeable with ONLY? Just want to make sure because if I start off with the confidence that CAN=MAY, I get this question right.

4
User Avatar
ArthurWasilewski
Monday, Feb 23

Is it correct to view your transition from "no parrots are clever" to "all parrots are not clever" as an application of the group four negate negate necessary? My mind just processes it quicker that way; for the LSAT, the less memory I have to use, the better. So I can roll with the idea that "no parrots are clever" works out to P--->/C due to Group 4 Negate Necessary that would be just swell.

1
User Avatar
ArthurWasilewski
Monday, Jan 26

@Kevin_Lin Awesome. Thank you. I think this course of yours is the best money I've ever spent.

1
User Avatar
ArthurWasilewski
Edited Monday, Jan 26

@Kevin_Lin Mind=blown(picking up mind pieces). So, manipulation of conditionals is contingent, if I'm to understand correctly; that is, manipulate the logic until you see logical connections? So, did you not draw out the contrapositive because you looked ahead and saw related terms in the follow-on sentences?

1
User Avatar
ArthurWasilewski
Edited Monday, Jan 26

For question 4, why wasn't the final step of Group 3(negate sufficient) applied--the contrapositive? Seems like the explanation in the video negated (never accept) to (accept), put it in as the sufficient, made (truly conf.) the necessary, but then didn't apply the contrapositive to make it: /(truly conf.) -->/(accept leadership). Explainer then just went on to the next term.

2

Confirm action

Are you sure?