Im taking my super sweet time on the grammar section as clearly it isnt only hard for myself and I can tell this is going to be very important on the LSAT. Half the time I read a prep question I have a 50% chance of not knowing what Im reading

Im actually very happy this section is included. WHen I was beginning to study for the LSAT 3w ago on LSAT Lab I could tell that grammar plays a huge role here. And yet they kept acting as if we'd all know it forsure. I myself am pretty intelligent but with these simple elementary things I hardly practiced after I learned I forgot most of it. Thank you!

Wow man I thought it meant literally burning the bulbs. I thought thats how the companies maybe got rid of the bulbs. Now I see that wasnt the brightest interpretation XD

Congrats! Can I ask how much of your progress has been due to 7sage? I am starting my prep now to be ready for next cycle. I need a 165 plus and my cold diag was a 147. I was on LSAT Lab for like 2.5 weeks and I didnt like it too much so I came here and Im on my second week. So far Ive liked it but Im clearly learning the basics rn and I want to know your op. because Ive seen some say it helped alot and some say different. Its different for us all so just curious! Congrats again!! Although you arent at your goal yet a 169 is great.

@mibuch Ahh that makes sense. Definitely a bit weird bc I do agree with one of the commenters that the why for this can be since they havent devised a recycling or disposal plan, but you are right I think that claim was made to support the second half of the last sentence not the sustainable long term one, even if it does support it.

@Ri I was thinking the same thing. Although maybe the devised recycling claim is made to support the second half of the last sentence and not the said sub conc.

@JaceGuinto95 im going to watch the video now and hopefully he explains it well because since getting it wrong ive re read it multiple times and still have zero clue how that was a premise to the conclusion.

@petvma completely agree. im sitting here rereading it and still dont get how that can be the premise to the conclusion.

@tams2018903 You are confused. Its saying that there were less people smoking who were eating alot of the foods whereas more people who had the low carotene diet were smoking. Since more people were smoking, the chance of them getting cancer is higher.

@Maliikm For me Ive been let down on the three versions of this "quiz". On each it seems as if theya re just relying on us finding the word and he doesnt teach why the premise supports the conc. If it has a indicator word, its a conc. IF it doesnt, it isnt. Although I get that learning indicators are important this is very unrealistic and I feel as if we can learn indicators while also learning on these why some were or werent conclusions/premises.