way to throw in a G1 in a skill builder of G2 indicator statements haha. got 4/5

I genuinely think in contrapositives haha. Is this a good thing?

If it rains in Oklahoma, grasshoppers ride motorcycles into the sunset.

/grasshoppers -> /rain OK

rain OK -> grasshoppers.

I feel this could cost me time in negating everything immediately as I read it. please advise.

I got to question 3 a little differently.

I feel I am on the right track but could be adding steps that will cut into my time strategy.

QOC = Quality of Comparison

CH = Characteristics

W = "Winner"

The population of game ducks at the western lake contains a lower percentage of adult males than the population at the eastern lake contains.

QOC = W-lake ducks v. E-lake ducks

CH = percentage of adult males in the population of ducks

W = W-lake

I feel like the first sentence of this argument is more context than support. Here is my breakdown.

Please advise.

Argument Breakdown

{Cx} = context

[C] = conclusion

(P) = premises

{Photographs show an area of Europa, a moon of Jupiter, where the icy surface appears to have buckled as a result of turbulent water moving underneath.} (This photographic evidence indicates that there is a warm sea beneath Europa's icy surface.) (The presence of such a sea is thought by scientists to be a primary factor in the early development of life,) [so there is reason to believe that there may be life on Europa.]

I feel that question 5 contains a sub-conclusion.

My markup is as follows:

{Context}

(Premise)

[Conclusion]

{The restaurants on the main block are all temporarily storing their food waste in their backyards.} [But this is not a sustainable, long term solution]. (Since none of them have devised a suitable recycling or disposal plan,) [they should stop producing food waste and shut down operations immediately.]

Please share your thoughts.

Could you say that "Train service suffers when a railroad combines" is a supporting conclusion? It is not the Main Conclusion. But a conclusion that stands on the MC "Therefore, if..."

The third scenario is the source or signal for the fire in the first place. C the sound of the alarm -> Fire Fighters -> size of fire

The only discrepancy that steered me away from AC D was the statement about "several years." What is several? This quantifier made this choice tricky for me because for 35 years of increased production using fertilizer kept the fertilizer market hot. Then, out of nowhere it doesn't. So is several meant to equal 35 years, then 1985 to 2025 is the timer which leads to ineffective use? I was torn between D and E. Seems less of a 1 star question.

Okay so this may have been a really bad approach, but I got this right and kept under time by 38 seconds.

I read the stimulus and saw the first conditional

More Consumers -> Profits increase

Took note of second conditional

Decrease in COL guarantees More consumers

Then I immediately negated the last conditional in my head and went hunting. No diagramming.

A goes against the conditional chain

B is correct

C would be false

D We do not know this for sure.

E This would be the trick set by the ", and" in the second conditional

After watching the video, I became slightly confused on how to map this in a diagram.

I have a small challenge with this answer interpretation. The AC is E. Which now makes sense. However, even in the missing connection - the summary states that "What if different instances of ball lightning are caused by different factors?" AC C.

Can you explain why C would not also be a connection?

add please.

In the throws of a major study plan to improve my score by 9 points in 3 weeks haha.

whiny little bitches. Love this video explanation haha. Thanks, J.Y..

Something I have found helpful for PAI Disagree questions is the "Split Method."

Read one perspective, then look at the ACs (you can potentially eliminate an AC or two)

Read second perspective, look at the ACs that dont apply to the first perspective ACs and you can get it down to maybe one or two more.

This applies heavily to Passage A Passage B in RC much more, but I have found this to be helpful with lower star difficulty questions. maybe I am crazy.

I got down to both "Most" ACs and ended up choosing E after bouncing between B and E.

I fell for the trap of speaking generally where the focus of the stimulus is actually about clinical trials and hospitals. The last sentence is supportive evidence.

I am confused by the explanations of the answers.

C states there is no causal relationship. but then the correct AC states that a given political structure is "caused" only by certain ecological or climatic factors. Does this not generate a causal relationship within the text?

I am posting my BR thought process on how I arrived at answer B. I treat my BR as my wrong answer journal. I am also sharing my biggest deficit in LSAT training....TIMING!!!!!!

This one threw me for a loop, but I feel clear about why B is correct AC.

At first, I was trying to hone in on specifics as they relate to raisins. But what the stimulus is really asking about is the way grapes stack up against raisins. Not Raisins V Grapes. This helped me eliminate any AC that talked specifically about Grapes. It also helped me eliminate answers mentioning raisins. Because this AC is meant to focus on the calorie ratio. A lot of mental gymnastics happening here, but worth the power spent overall. Is cost-prohibitive to spend this much time on a question on test day because I could have gotten 3 or 4 questions answered in the time I spent on this one question.

This is probably the best diagrammatic explanation video J.Y has ever done for an SA question. Outstanding.

I was just at NYC bar Association for a conference. Im 11 hours away. Bummer. Enjoy!

These are highly valuable recaps.

I wish there were more so I could review them before my LSAT saturday haha.

When I did this question first pass I pulled the language from the stim into these notes.

an effect produced (warning) by an action (sentinel barking) that a purpose of the action (selfish or altruistic) is to produce that effect (warning).

However, when I did this it confused the hell out of me. I needed to digest this AC but I could not be convinced it was correct. It reads like a marry-go-round.

Yes, I look at these charts. They are helpful. They don't look this good yet, but I use them. Create a goal-driven analytics system for this platform. This way we can say, "I want a minus 3 on RC and minus 2 on LR" then an analytics-driven study plan can be formulated to increase point uptick. Low-hanging fruit just waiting to be created for this program.

I was torn between A and E throughout this entire question. Everything else seemed weakening. I fell for the weaker worded answer choice which I believe is exactly what contributed to me choosing A over E.

Physical sensation is derived from cognitive functions, so, this question separating the two as if physical and cognitive are separate makes this much more difficult to answer than a typical 3 star question. I would argue this is more of a 4 star question. How would one assume that physical pleasure and intellectual stimulation are operating separately and not simultaneously? This is where this AC deepens the mystery.

Through POE you can get here because the other ACs just aren't even close. However, this correct AC is a stretch that weakly bifurcates cognition into two domains when cognition is intertwined. I truly feel like the LSAT writer did a synonym search for the word cognitive and intellectual popped up. haha.