@EliNorris there can be new ideas in the AC. We take answer choices to be true. Genetic predisposition is brought up as a potential other factor that causes Parkinsons and diets with iron. But author uses A to show that people who have genetic predisposition have equal amounts of iron in diets, which precludes an alternative hypothesis, which strengthens the causal relationship the author concludes.

@Willyc

In the stimulus it says "Although counterfeits of microprinted currency can be detected easily by experts, such counterfeits often circulate widely before being detected".

But also, we are taking the AC to be true. So, we take the fact that "when an anti-counterfeiting technique depends on the detection of counterfeits by experts" part as true in the A. We know that this part is a referrent to microprinting in the stimulus.

E sounds too good to be true. E points out that there's no causal link between X and IN, which weakens our hypothesis that IN causes X.

I saw E and just thought its too good to be true and went through to POE just in case. E directly tells us that there's no causal link, which weakens.

@CherryMayDelaCruz Thanks for bringing them back!!

For flaw questions, I would just start with conditional reasoning first. Then once you have the hang of that work on Flaw Questions. For the flaws, I would memorise the list of recurring flaws. The flaw game on 7sage is super useful too. But until you figure out the conditional reasoning, I wouldn't try to work on flaw questions. You can only do so much at once and focusing your energy on one topic is better time and energy spent than scattering your resources.

I made flash cards at one point, but I didn't find them helpful. It helped me in the moment, but when dealing with real LSAT questions, I just blanked out. I found that just practicing different Conditional Reasoning and Diagramming Tagged questions helped me the most. I would just look at the stimulus and translate it into diagrams and not even answer the question. Maybe practice with a set of 10 questions and check with the analysis or video to see if you got the diagram down. I would practice the stimulus diagram before even attempting to do the answers. I would also make note of when you confuse certain indicators for sufficient/necessary conditions. It's a good idea to keep a note of what you miss so you can try to fix your mistakes.

I don't want to play devils advocate, but let's say LSAC didn't introduce the Dual-Enrollment GPA policy change in the first place. Then the GPA calculation would have been the same from previous years right? And if you were planning to apply this year, before these changes were introduced, then surely the reversal of this policy change doesn't make any difference compared to applying in previous years. I'm not an admissions advisor, but surely the effect of the delay of this policy on admissions isn't that great: seems to be the same admissions procedures as previous years.

THIS!! I'll be borrowing all of these ideas and fine tuning how I approach studying. Thank You!!

On a necessary assumption question, your correct answer, based on the stimulus, Must Be True. Your correct answer choice, if negated, must also destroy the support (your premise to conclusion).

I would refrain from thinking of answer choices like strengtheners because a necessary assumption does not necessarily strengthen an argument. A necessary assumption must be necessary but it could make 0 impact on making the conclusion more likely to be true. It's just that when we negate the necessary assumption, the premises no longer support the conclusion, so the argument falls apart.

I find it much easier to think of necessary assumptions using the Must Be True test. You would approach NA questions like a MBT question and you look for something that is supported by the stimulus. To check you can use the negation test and ensure that the negated AC destroys the support structure in the stimulus.

In response to PT145.S4.Q26, I would evaluate A and E as follows:

A - Emptying and refilling an oceangoing ship's ballast tanks in midocean would ensure at least that no sea creatures capable of disturbing the ecology in a new habitat are pumped into the tanks

Must this be true? No, we don't know if "emptying and refilling the tanks would ensure that at least no sea creatures... are pumped into tanks". We don't know anything about "ensuring" or that the tanks are sufficient for having 0 sea creatures pumped. A is hard to support based on the stimulus.

E - There are at least some oceangoing ships whose stability could be adequately maintained while emptying and refilling their ballast tanks in midocean.

Must this be true? Yes. If the ship is carrying these tanks to improve stability and then the author is recommending we do this process that would empty and refill the tanks mid journey, then it must also be true that there are some ships where this process doesn't go against the tanks' objective of improving stability. This is a must be true inference that we can make from the stimulus. If we negate E to say that "there are NO ships whose stability can be maintained while..." then how could it be that we can still do this process while the ship is at sea? Doesn't that go against the whole point of the tanks, which are for improving stability? So that's how the negated version of E would destroy the conclusion.

Now, notice that I didn't say "strengthen" or look at whether the answer choice makes the conclusion more likely to be true when evaluating the necessary assumption answer choices. That's because a NA does not need to strengthen an argument; it just so happens that when we negate the NA it destroys the conclusion (don't confuse with weaken). A necessary assumption is an unstated premise that the argument requires, where taking it away would make the argument fall apart. So, whether that necessary assumption strengthens, weakens, etc doesn't matter when evaluating to find the necessary assumption. What does matter is seeing whether it's entirely necessary for the argument. Ask yourself in each AC, "if this were not the case, does it destroy the argument (make the argument/support fall apart)?"

Hope this helps! Feel free to message if you have more questions!

A is a bit tricky to parse through.

Anything that exists would continue to exist even if everyone were to stop believing in it.

Exist -> continue to exist | contrapositive: /continue to exist - > /Exist

The "even if" part is a concession. Although it's a point made, it's not really relevant when we are looking for our assumption P ->C gap.

A does work as a P -> C gap because if something doesn't continue to exist, then it disappears. And if the premise in the stimulus is about something that disappears and the conclusion is about not existing, then A is the gap filler.

I'm in tester mode, and I can't find the PT Number. Section Number. Question Number on the question, unless I go back to the drill results page.

Is this just a bug?

It looks like you should improve accuracy first. Once you build that accuracy, then you should get into working on time.

@Nishitha If you buy a CAS then you can request the transcript form the school needs to send in with your transcript. It depends on where you went to school, if it needs translation, etc. Earlier the better. CAS lasts for 5 years

If you plan on applying this cycle, I highly recommend you get your transcript translated and sent to LSAC asap. They need to send it off to a third party to have it evaluated and that takes time. Unless your school participates in an online service, they'll have to mail it to LSAC as well. I am still waiting on mine to process, despite it being roughly 1.5 months

You submit your transcript to LSAC and they re-evaluate your GPA for you. They score it on 4 categories: Superior (A), Above Average (B), Average (C), and Below Average (D/F).

At the end of the day, because your GPA won't be an American/Canadian GPA, the GPA has less weight. Rather, your LSAT Score will be weighed more.

https://www.lsac.org/applying-law-school/jd-application-process/cas/requesting/international-transcripts/international

Great Explanation video @MichaelWright !!!

Conditional Map as best I could:

I -m> /R (Broker Advice)

I -m> /R (Hutches)

“Only a few always do research before investing” means SOME R and Most do NOT R. 

I <s> R (Own Reseach)

I <s> R (Hutches or Broker Advice )

I -m> Profit  

Valid Inferences 

A m> B 

A m> C 

==

B <S>C

So in our case we can infer that

I -m> /R (Broker Advice)

I -m> /R (Hutches)

I -m> Profit

==

/R <S> Profit

The cap is giving @HenryEwing energy

I use the Voisen Orange earplugs on Amazon. I use them everytime I study, take PT, etc. Good to get used to using them even before test day!

Isn't B correct because in the stimulus we are told that

Progress -> /Reasonable People.

B is the contrapositive of that to say:

Reasonable People -> /Progress.

Is that why B is our must be true answer?

Two takeaways on this question:

1) I thought that the first sentence was conditional (with depends), but was questioning the extent to the conditional. I mapped the (iffy) conditional anyways, but I did realise that the second sentence was the main conditional reasoning.

2) Even if the structure of A and /B or A <S> /B matches, you still need to make sure that the A and B matches with what you have. Both D and E are attractive because the wording of both ACs match our prephrased structure of a MBF question.

What makes D incorrect though is that D is saying "Succeed <S> /Efforts necessary"

But, the sufficient condition in our stimulus is actually "follow leader" not "Succeed". That's what makes D fall short.

In comparison, E is the best AC that conforms to MBF. We are told Leader <S> /Efforts Necessary (unsure). This matches the A <S> /B relationship we were looking for.

There's not a lot of substance in the stimulus besides the facts (premises) that a human liver cell can divide 60 times then stop. Also, if a human liver cell divides 30 times and then is put to be frozen and then thawed, it divides another 30 times but NO MORE.

Well, if we know that a liver cell did divide more than 60 times, then we know that it CANNOT be a human liver cell that was frozen and then thawed.

That's why B is correct. Given our premises, B cannot follow.