@atticus.j619 good riddance. I hated LG and always will. 35 min is simply not enough time for those questions

@Aliza GGG I used group 3 conditional logic as well. I was following your outline up until the part you put:

"for X /ACE", and I didn't understand what that meant.

However, I did acknowledge that:

"----------"

X(BDR) meant "therefore, species X will develop greater resistance"

But I recognize the discussion text box has limitations when trying to illustrate membership using Lawgic. I would've written it "species x(/ACE)" similarly to how you wrote "species x(BDR)".

Then when translating back to English, I would've written:

For species X has membership in not being completely eliminated by antibiotics (why??) because the stimulus tells us. Therefore, species X will develop greater resistance.

No discredit to you! I wanted to adapt some of your breakdown to make it easier for me (or someone thinking like) to understand. Because I initially used group 3 conditional logic. I completely forgot about applying rule/ exception.

What's your timezone, bossman?

Brother Richard!

My name is Christian. Much of your study journey and background immediately resonated with me! Took the LSAT a while back, performed very poorly (due to a lack of consistency & proper study routines/ partnerships). Now I'm back after the Logic game removal (thank God), have been studying intermittently since AUG, but like you, need to kick my ass in steady gear. One change I haven't attempted is a small, consistent study group. I'm PTing in the low 40s with my biggest struggle being time management. I'm going back through CC to review.

I'd love to grab a seat on this delightful struggle bus and ride the wheels off to finally escape this abhorrent test. I'm on CST, I joined your discord, and am ready to learn, exchange, and ultimately succeed!

Hi Jordyn!

My name is Christian. I was also looking for someone on central time! Is this study group still open? Like many, I've been needing an accountability partner and have suffered from low motivation/ discipline. I'm pursing the February test (to potentially include APR, based on February's results). I really need to lock-in and stay consistent. I'm currently scoring in the mid-40s, I apologize in advance if thats too low. But I'm determined to overcome my fear and improve my score to the upper 50s/low 60s.

I'm available both mornings & evenings! Look forwarding to linking if possible! Take care and God bless!

@TylerMadani021 I knew I couldn't be the only one! I did the EXACT same thing. I eliminated AC. C because I understood "only three of our bodies of water" to mean those are the ONLY three that exist. This question came with my MSS Practice drill set and I got all 5 wrong. But I am so relieved that to know someone else understood it the same way I did!

This is so crushing man.. 😔I feel so defeated, 0/5 for both. I didn't change any of my answers because I felt my reasoning/ PoE were correct. For 3 questions, I narrowed down to two and still always choose the wrong answer. It's extremely frustrating; I feel stupid that I couldn't get a single question correct.

I noticed for two questions, I misread the answer choice/stim and that led me to silly mistakes, but for questions PT146.S2.Q19 & PT143.S1.Q20, the stimuli messed me up.

For PT146.S2.Q19, I read "but our natural-gas pipelines run in the vicinity of only three of our large bodies of water" to mean those were the ONLY 3 bodies water in the country, so I PoE'd because it didn't matter if they expanded the fuel pipelines because they there were no more bodies of water to expand them to.

For PT143.S1.Q20, "They found that 35 percent of the former and none of the latter showed evidence of damage to a structure of nerve cells called the subplate." I struggled on this sentence. After a few reads, I understood it to mean, 35 percent of deceased brains with schizophrenia and 0% of deceased brains without schizophrenia had shown evidence of damage etc. Is that what it meant? Former corresponds to the first group and latter corresponds to the second group. I know I'm not crazy. lol.

@GregEvans LOLOL! They got us again, brother! and to think I thought I had this one on the blind review.. smh. This is TUFF...

Question for a tutor or smarter 7Sager,

Thankfully, before playing the video, I was able to narrow down my choices to A&B. I struggled with them both because:

A - seemed like there was no support in the stimulus for A.

B - however, had strong language in the answer. "networks do not rely on subscriber fees etc..". From my understanding, I thought we're taught to be weary or stray away from answers with absolutes. I didn't feel the stimulus definitively supported that broadcasters DO NOT rely on subscriptions.

Regarding the SoS (spectrum of support), I didn't understand J.Y. putting choice A on the anti-supported side. He said if choice A read "broadcasts have expanded to several countries" - that would be explicitly anti-supported. Why would that be placed on the anti-supported side?

Is this below example an invalid argument?

A ←S→ B -M→ C

__________

A ←S→ C

If so, can someone please explain why this form is invalid? Thanks in advance!

Is the explanation that '←S→' is implied within 'All' and we already know that 'all' cannot proceed '-M→' or ' ←S→'. If it does proceed either of those two quantifiers, the argument is invalid, is my basic understanding.

@Gertabarentos Great example! Thanks for sharing, but I believe you meant to invalidly conclude that "therefore, some relaxing teas help with sleep".

With the Grace of the almighty and powerful God, I will score no less than 163 on the LSAT this January. I pray for all my fellow future counselors. We just have to remain consistent and hungry. Ask God to bring you confidence and trust in his will for your journey. We must stay hungry, team. We improve, incrementally each day. As Brad said, do not deprive the world of you God given talents and purpose! 

@[Deleted] That's what everyone keeps saying and that's what I keep trying to convince myself. But does it really work that way? Just keep practicing and you magically get faster? The time crunch is what crushes me and my confidence. I feel like I'm not fast enough and therefore, I blow the whole thing. :/

I got this wrong, but I don't know how else (other than the usual practice/takes more time trope) to change my reasoning. I was able to POE many of the answers, except for A. I eliminated D, correctly assuming that the public's attention is something journalist wanted. But for the previous portion of the answer, "A basic principle of journalism etc" , I felt thought the best way for a journalistc to stimulate debate/controversy was NOT fact check or newmakers claims. I reasoned that false/ unsupported claims were MORE controversial and likely to be debated! That's why I eliminated D. It made sense that a journalist wouldn't check quote veracity to get viewers to react/debate to ridiculously false claims.

I guess I overlooked 'A' thinking a disputed claim by a publication/journalist wouldn't be enough of an explanation as to why a journalist would not fact check claims. I was so sure of D being the answer. When I'm so confident of the answer and it makes sense to me on both the first try and blind review, I get deeply discouraged and just feel dumb. Lol.