@rachelmh97 Yep! this was the only question I got wrong in the entire section. For me I got it wrong because, while sure it is in the same sentence, it was also at the bottom of the paragraph. That combined with the convoluted nature of it led me to glance it over first try.

7 minutes 45 seconds, 14/14 baby. 1 minute 7 seconds under

@yam I know I have been getting -0 - -3 on LR sections but RC is killing me!

Fuck! I can't get any questions in this category correct! and on top of it life is beating my ass right now! I need a win!!

bro these question types are wrecking me. It is not clicking at all and I can't get it to click at all!!!!

This question type is the first one I am fumbling on

got it right in 32 seconds, but I think if the correct answer hadn't been the first one I read, I would have been a little confused. Looking back on it, the word eligible is key, and also quite easy to gloss over.

"an officer eligible for the award who did something this year that exceeded what could be reasonably expected of a police officer should receive the award if the act saved someone's life."

Huge sentence, but let's break it down baby. An officer ELIGIBLE for the award (good standing=eligible) who went above and beyond should get the award.

This does NOT mean that someone who did not go above and beyond should NOT receive the reward. They are still eligible and maybe should also receive it! If you get this, the answers become clear. We are looking for something to make valid why 1 person should get the reward, and one person should not. This means we need one person in good standing, who may or may not have exceeded reasonable expectations of a police officer, and one person NOT in good standing, who may or may not have exceeded the reasonable expectations of a police officer.

@r.ojina if you don't know what conducive means by the time you complete college idek bro. you gotta read a book

I am not seeing these patterns (but also I guess im not looking for them super hard) im getting all my questions right the first time and hoping not drilling these patterns now doesn't bite me too hard later

I got it right on a feeling. Blind review I mapped it and it made sense. same thing as the last question. What brings me confusion on both is basically not mapping the contrapositive. It is so hard for me to see the right answer unless I see

club->10+movies->last location

contrapositive

/last location->/10+movies->/club

Question 3 hurt me! I was confident in my identification of the conclusion (telling students that ww1 started from an assassination is misleading), but when I did not see this essentially verbatim within the answer choices, I doubted my identification of the conclusion.

I then wound up using the supporting context for the conclusion (treaties and armies amassed are the fundamental causes) as what I thought was the conclusion. I still got the question right, but it took me nearly 3 minutes, and I was very aware that I was not tackling this question correctly because of my uncertainty over what the conclusion was. This is the first MC question I have encountered which threw me off and made me feel like lost orphan street puppy dog. I assume this means I need more practice with conclusions that only make sense with referential context tied in.

I got it right. but I went 25 seconds over time. I think my biggest struggle I am consistently running into is time, and I hope I get some tips on this or it gets better naturally as I go on. For this one I was confident in my answer as soon as I saw it, but the verbal complexity of the stem and answer choices significantly slows me down in even getting to the answer choice I view as correct.

@KatherineAmir I believe this comes down to your confidence and knowledge. The 2 ways to find an answer are to either seek out the correct one or rule out the incorrect ones. I will often go down the answers and cross each out until I find the correct one. If I am not 100% confident I may very briefly judge the remaining answers. In this one, I picked the correct answer and did not look at the others as I felt confident. I felt a little less confident in my blind reviews as I took the time to carefully examine each answer, and the last answer looked great, and thought I had made a mistake until I broke it down and realized the last answer relies on multiple distinctions and claims, when we are only given one. I think if you do it this way and find that it works for you, its a fine strategy, but some test takers may prefer to rule out each one, especially if they are not very confident.

this is my 3rd 5/5 in a row and I haven't touched lsat prep in 2 weeks. and im hungover

4th 5/5 adaptive drill in a row who want me

@anamat ? Almonds-m->grown cali

Grown cali-m->go to Brazil

There's the chain. forget the produce.

@ElianaC I think you can safely replace it seems likely with "most" 51%+ odds would normally be seen as likely to some degree.

@Cynthia.Martelli

Equating Many to Some helped me. I did not look at the analysis fwiw, but I did get it correct.

Characterizations of work <-s-> Imprecise

(Some characterizations are imprecise)

Imprecise->/adequate basis for sound criticism of my work

(all imprecise characterizations are not and adequate basis for sound criticism)

Tie it together: Characterizations of work <-s-> Imprecise -> /adequate basis

From this we can infer:

Characterizations of work <-s-> /Adequate basis for sound criticism.

(Some (at least one!) characterizations of work do not provide an adequate basis for sound criticism. Some A are B. All B are C. therefore some A are C. B and C are essentially the same thing here. Imprecise and not adequate are one and the same, and we know that some characterizations are imprecise.

Could not make this work in my head at all until you did the visualization.

I was about to quit and then 7sage shows me some guy did it while homeless. Im back

this made me feel so dumb

oh yes. I get my revenge on the ice and blizzard question finally. I have been fighting to understand it for a day now.

@Elideebeep thanks queen. saved me some energy

Man. Going back to yesterday and the "There won’t be ice on the sidewalk tomorrow, unless there is a blizzard tonight", this blew my mind. I am still looking at it and it is so hard for me to wrap my head around what is the subset and what is the superset. I think the use of negatives is what really screws me up.

I am the only person here in Wyoming