I don't know if it's just me but the way he explains why the ACs are wrong just confuse me even more. Instead of creating another argument in a totally different setting, can't he just simply state, without overcomplicating, why the AC does not fit this particular argument? By the end of the explanations, I still don't understand why I got the answer wrong or how the other ACs weren't right for this argument. Might just be me though since english isn't my first language.

This is genuinely the first LSAT question that made me cry cuz idk what the hell those answer choices were trying to say. I just hate it here....

This is the actual question (link works in the classic version, not the new one):

A young man suggested to his friend that they steal a large-screen TV from a neighbor’s house. The friend was angry with the young man and decided to use the opportunity to get even with him by having him arrested. The friend said he would help, and that night, he drove the young man to the neighbor’s house. The young man broke in while the friend remained outside. The friend called the police on his cell phone and then drove away. Police officers arrived at the scene just as the young man was carrying the TV out the back door.

The jurisdiction defines crimes as at common law. Of what crime, if any, can the friend properly be convicted?

A. No crime.

B. Conspiracy.

C. Burglary.

D. Conspiracy and larceny.

Wow, I cannot believe the shallow dip trick from the previous lesson was going to be this effective! Got it right in 2min!

Well, after constantly getting lvl 4 & 5 questions right during the curriculum, I somehow scored a 1/5 and 3/5 on BR. Can't even feel a pang of sadness anymore, just numb to it all