Just because she did not deliver her speech does not mean that the assassination was successful. A successful assassination attempt is sufficient for her not giving the speech, but it is not necessary because the stimulus only says that she cannot give the speech unless the assassination fails. She can give the speech if the attempt fails, she also could simply choose not to. Hope this helps.

Just slow down and do some practice to see if you get it.

#feedback

This does matter. It is really annoying but it will really mess you up to put these concepts on different sides of the arrow. Not being in August is not sufficient for having a holiday, there are potentially several other months without holidays. That is what your translation is saying. I struggled with this a lot when I started and am currently coming back to the start of the curriculum to get an understanding of it.

I think that is part of intersecting sets.

Almost got my ass, very cheeky. Got it at the last moment.

I feel like even if E did not exist, the 1910 law did not have the exemption for Native Alaskan tradition, that was the MMPA in 1972. D could have been correct if it were referencing the correct piece of legislation AND E did not exist.

47 seconds under target, beat that Gordy!

inner peace

I did the same thing, it is really helpful to do most of the stuff in order. The curriculum is rly made to be done (mostly) in order.

Yeah because if you falsify a sufficient assumption it does not completely destroy an argument. This is because the argument does not need the sufficient assumption in order to stand.

Measured with numbers

The tip that the main point is what the author thinks is prob the best tech I have ever adopted.

Weakening your opponent's argument is not the same as strengthening your argument.

Mathematically you are right on track to complete a full section in under 35 mins. 17 mins is less than half the length of a section and 13 questions is just over half.

Answer choice A is conflating what the author may believe and what lawyers believe. The passage only says that lawyers think it should be used when the information would be more damaging if the other side raised it, and that they think stealing thunder is effective.

lol

If we can't mark up the text like Kevin can retention is def the move for me too. My strat is reiterating the main points of the passage after every paragraph so I don't get lost in the sauce.

The LSAC can suck my ass and balls for this question. Probably the most difficult main point question I have ever encountered in 6 months of studying.

Depends on how fast you jot down those words. If you think that writing it down will limit how much you need to reread, it is probably worth. If you find that you still have to reread, it is probably best to try your best to keep it in your head. Personally, as I read I also reiterate important information in the context of the other important info in the passage. It only takes a second or 2 to think about how one paragraph connects to another, or to reiterate who thinks what.

It just means that it is a contractual obligation. They are bound by that contract if they want to keep their job.

I feel like that is totally chill for this question since so many of the verbs were so inaccurate. Definitely BDE can be eliminated, A is still somewhat accurate but it is so weak.

The fact that the LSAT is taken on a computer and not on paper is so brutal. I would give anything to be able to write my 2 word low res summary in the margins. It would make everything so much easier.

It says deities

Don't sweat that 34 seconds is nothing you can't make up for in other questions.