I went several minutes over time with this one. For me, C was the best answer, but to me the portion of the answer that read that a pesticide would be acceptable "only if it is used for its intended purpose" felt kind of obsolete. That didn't really feel like a point of contention in the stimulus.

This is the first PSAr exercise I've gotten right (out of 2). I went about 20 seconds over time but I think I'm getting the hang of these pseudo-sufficient assumption (find the rule) questions. These really have to be perfect fits. Comparing the stimulus to C, the correct answer, I see that the C reflects the qualifying conditions of "good journalism" as outlined in the stimulus: accurate information and the fact that "many people are curious about the politician's nephew's problems."

This was a really really hard question for me.

I picked D because I assumed that Hagerle is capable of sincerely apologizing to someone, given that H already sincerely apologized to the P. I thought, "okay, we know that H told the same lie to the C. We know that H is capable of sincerely ap. to someone cus H already ap. to the P." It didn't make sense for me to write off the possibility that, if maybe H were to have told the same lie to say, three, four, five people instead of just two, then H would have to sinc. apol. to them as well. So I thought it made senes that (D) was the right answer.

I am reading the explanation for why that is the wrong trigger. I assumed incorrectly that H is capable of sincerely apologizing to the counselor, which we actually don't know from the stimulus that H is capable of doing.

I did not select the right answer (C) on BR. I think this is because I tend to write off these "word salad" answers too soon. (C) is phrased as a structural nightmare. Passive voice, clunky wording and the whole lot. But reading through it closely, it is sound. Following the logic, H owes Counselor a sinc. ap. BECAUSE someone else (phys) has already received a sinc. ap. from that individual (H). There is no assumption being made about H's capability to sincerely apologize.

Such a tricky question in my opinion.

I am typing this right after I finished the question and before I looked at any of the explanations, so I am still in fresh reaction mode pretty much. I got this question correct, but went twenty two seconds over time because I was thinking about it for pretty long. I just started this unit on pseudo-sufficient assumptions and after I read the stimulus I went into "hunt mode" for the missing link, which to me was that line about how two of the codefendants have the same legal counsel and that the court wouldn't order any codefendant to find new LC. Were those just red herrings? Because I know from common knowledge that defendants have the right to have their legal counsel present when being questioned, which is the answer I chose because the rest didn't really fulfill the answer to the question as well.

I feel like I am oversimplifying this and missing the bigger picture, which makes me a bit worried. What I mean is that I am not seeing the causal chains and essentially did not do any logical reasoning for this question. I kind of picked B just based on common sense and pretty much got lucky that it was the right answer. Did anyone else experience this? How do you approach these kinds of questions? And most of all, does it make sense how I thought about this question?

I'm pretty fresh to deeply studying for the LSAT lol, thank you if you've beared through reading all this.

I figured out the answer to this question but read the answers thoroughly and ended up going six seconds over. I need to be able to balance reading the answers (I feel like taking every answer seriously is important) while also being efficient.

I picked D with three seconds over. According to the stimulus, the researcher found that both groups of joggers (stretch and non-stretch) reported the same number of injuries. D made the most sense to be because those who are more injury prone would stretch to mitigate the injuries; those who are less injury prone would not. Thus, D is the best answer as it suggests that stretching does indeed support that group that needs the support.

Consistently scoring 4/5s on drills :( hope I can make it to 5/5 with practice

I'm feeling a bit discouraged to find that, though this was a tough question, most people who got this one wrong chose C the first time. I was narrowing my choice between D and E. I kind of eliminated any answer that mentioned artworks off of a suspicion that artworks were a distraction/something the LSAT writers threw in to the stimulus to throw us off the trail from the right answer. I guess that was true? Anyways, I am still kind of struggling to see how D and E are that different from each other. When I picked E on the first go, I thought to myself: a coffeehouse with a spacious interior is a comfortable place. Then I sort of "flipped the arrow" which was probably where I went wrong, as I assumed that being a comfortable place meant that the coffee shop would be well-designed? I guess that a comfortable place can nevertheless have some other quirk that can disqualifying it from being well designed as per the conditions of the stimulus.

D does follow that arrow of logic. Disregarding the artwork, well-designed public places (grouping together coffee + restarants) with a spacious interior that have a spacious interior are comfortable.

This one is still racking my brain a bit. Hopefully I can get better with practice.

I went well over time on this question because it took me a while to chain conditional claims. Glad I landed on the right answer, but I basically second guessed myself while I was chaining the claims and that caused time to add up.