@SofiyaBerman literally was about to comment this lol why do level 5s come so natural but the 2s and 3s are tripping me whyyyyy

@clarktoo that's the spirit. In my experience, mastering the mindset is just as important as mastering the skills. It's okay to trust yourself when you've put in the work. I believe in you!

@clarktoo I totally get where you're coming from here. As someone who has already taken the LSAT once, let me explain my approach for the second time around.

During the early stages, I've been methodical and exacting with mapping out stims that I don't understand on the first pass. By mapping, I mean getting out pen and paper and using the skills we've cultivated thus far in the course. As I've started to get better at reading stims and go hunting (where possible) I opt to avoid mapping because sometimes it's just not needed. Eventually, I anticipate that mapping will be necessary only for questions that are really stumping me. Most because we can't map every single question on test day - you simply will not have the time to do so.

What I want emphasize is that your intuitions are good. If you're getting answers correct, you're within time, and you understand when you get answers incorrect, that's exactly the sweet spot to live in. If you've put in the work to understand and perfect the skills we're building, you should trust them.

J.Y. takes the time to map these questions out to help those who are struggling and to clarify where we may have gone astray. The LSAT is timed and you will need to dispense with some mapping in the interest of expediency. If you're putting in the time to perfect the fundamentals, you can trust yourself when it's crunch time.

Happy studying, and don't get discouraged. YOU CAN DO IT!

@epayne17 Agreed. Additionally, the last sentence of the stim states only "vacuum tubes." I didn't feel as though it was a leap to state just vacuum tubes in the answers.

Regardless, I gather the point J.Y. makes here is to exercise pragmatism when surveying the answers. Compare the other answer choices against your suspected correct answer to clarify if your hunch is correct.

WAY OVER TIME BUT GOT IT RIGHT W/O BLIND REVIEW IM LEARNING!!!

@FultonHoover While I get where you're going here, I believe the important word to look out for here is "can." The stim never says ONLY members of the club can receive the coupon, it only specifies that they CAN receive it. That is not a guarantee for club members, and so we know nothing about the coupon's exclusivity.

Over on time but got it right without blind review lets gooooooo

that darn interjected premise in Q4 absolutely sent me. 4/5 though so feeling good otherwise.

@tteokkim surgical explanation and i really appreciate it. you helped clarify some confusion working through this section. We may be looking at a conditional, but the quantifier is NOT conditional--it expresses an intersection. THANK YOU!

@JalisaM. yeah this one threw me for a loop too. It's very easy to read a little too quick and miss that the clause before "unless" is conditional. The reason it's so easy to miss (I believe) is because the subject (sale of merchandise) appears at the end of clause one, while the predicate ("no restrictions should be placed on...") sits at the beginning. I'll admit I didn't see it the first time, but if you think about it, this IS conditional.

Rule: If selling merchandise --> (then) no restrictions should be placed upon it

Exception: the merch could endanger innocent people.

Thank you for confirming I'm not the only one who got confused for a second on that one lol

@LiviaLSAT It is a group 4 indicator :) using the Rule +Exception Framework, we get the following:

Rule: Pandas Relocated --> /Prosper (negating prosper here is the group 4 translation rule)

Exception: Poachers driven out

your instincts were correct!

@lawyergirl27 they are necessary conditions! that's why they appear on the right side of the arrow.

"action morally good (SUFFICIENT)--> benefits another (NECESSARY) & performed with intention (NECESSARY)"

@dancingqueen138 I don't think the content in parentheses is fact, it's more mapping the information onto to something concrete so it's easier to parse the comparative. the emphasis is on the "rights of future generations vs the rights of any presently living individual." The argument doesn't tell us what presently living individuals would do, but assuming some kind of action can help pick up on what is being actually compared.

@AlyssaInvernizzi what helped me understand why I answered this incorrectly is to imagine the comparative in this question like it's from a news report about household energy usage during a cold snap. The lines immediately preceding the sentence would establish that the newscaster is comparing the indoor temps that people were accustomed to, versus indoor temps now.

That at least helped me see where I went wrong interpreting the question.