Damn, I assumed absence of gov meant chaos, ruling out A

POE remains undefeated

Shit, I looked at the wrong sentence, im actually so retarded, lost a point to a stupid mistake

I forgot my group 4 conditionals :(

I had it, I was so confident in A, chose it before looking at other answers, then I saw D, chose it because it "felt" better. I'm so disappointed, anyways got it on BR :)

Here is how I did it

stim goes: P (paleomycologist) -> acquainted with SP (all other scholarly publishing's)

Mansour is a member of the necessary condition (SP)

------------------------------------------------

Thus: Mansour is a P (paleomycologist)

A is weird but its flaw is parallel as the Stims. It follows as:

GAD (Global Airline Delayed) -> CGAD (all other GA connecting flights are delayed)

Frieda is a member of the necessary condition (CGAD- GA Connecting flight is delayed)

--------------------------------------------------

Thus: Freida's GA flight was delayed (GAD)

This flaw of necessary and sufficiency confusion is similar in both the stim and AC-A

Hope this helps anyone out there

Not necessarily, i use it to see my weakest points, but it gives me a warped view of what my scores could be in the future. My very first score was a 143, and the analytics said i could expect "x" amount of increase. However, I far exceeded the analytics expectations, and it doesn't now help, it just tells me I'm way more accurate in that field of subset of questions. Not super helpful, but the priority is very helpful.

I am also taking the LSAT in October, can I be included please?

Honestly, when I see these questions, its much easier to see it on my BR than on my first try. Its frustrating, but I completely understand why I got it wrong, I just wish I did that on my first try :/

AC-E: Levelheaded then not excessively generous and not bold

1. If EG then /LH

2. If LH then /bold

Contrapositive on the first conditional statement

LH then /EG and /bold = AC-E

The strongest arguments are those which have little to no reasonable doubt, in other words, there should be no reason to believe the conclusion is wrong, in weaker arguments, there is some room for doubt and the connection between the premises and conclusion is questionable

A bookstore in a friendly neighborhood has been robbed, because many people in the neighborhood are formerly convicted thieves, it must be true that one or more of these thieves robbed the library.

In order to be a successful mechanic, one must spend months learning about cars, or completed multiple years apprenticeship, Jerry, a successful mechanic, has not spent months learning about cars, so Jerry must have finished his apprenticeship.