@smithy I had this exact thought which slowed me down at first. But then I thought, why would an actor who has played a role not be able to write the entire play with accuracy? Because they lost the script and forgot everything except their parts.

I would really like each answer to be able to point to areas within the stimulus as they apply (right or wrong).

Some of the analyses in the ACs say "this is incorrect because it points to a premises not the conclusion"..

Okay...point to the premises then where this incorrect AC is pointing.

Just a suggestion.

This question had a layer of muck all over it that disguised the benefit of woody vegetation from what I would presume to be the safest option...a wooden box. Therein lies the problem. I assumed a wooden box was more safe than woody vegetation.

The stimulus actually does not explicitly state that one is more safe than the other.

Weird question.

I just viewed this as "Employees at Flegco Corp who wear back belts are lifting heavy stuff" and "Employees who dont wear back belts are office workers."

The stimulus points to a very clear distinction between the two groups. ALL employees whose job involves lifting heavy objects wear back belts. So why does Phyllis not wear a back belt? Because she types at a computer.

This is a stretch haha. This is the strangest RRE question I've seen on here.

This is so cool. I was just coming here to check with the support team if this was a scam haha. Cheers!

I saw a tutor answer stating that the conclusion is something along the lines of "loss of birds due to snakes..."

But the support is a referent to the actual conclusion stating that the consequence was because of an introduction of the brown tree snake. So is the supportive referent "This is a consequence" pointing forwarding in the stimulus?

Typically referents point backward. So I see why this is a four star question.

I unfortunately fell for the curve breaker C. Although all ACs except for C and A were marked off...so I died on the 50/50 split once again.

The answer is obvious when you ignore all the extra fill at the beginning. However, I took over 1m 35s to answer this.

I got it correct. But, something made D feel like an assumption and less like support. Can anyone provide feedback on why I am thinking this?

For a one star question I feel shocked by this questions ability to draw this much time from me. haha

I got this correct. Please tell me if my thinking is correct on this. Any perspective is helpful.

The study says those who recently recovered from colds took cold medicine and reported more severe symptoms during the course.

Those that didn't did not have severe symptoms.

How I arrived at E.

Perhaps those who did take cold medicine in the study were further along in their illness or more compromised, therefore in desperation they decided to go on a round of cold medicine.

So, the cold may just be more progressive leading to taking cold medicine and not the other way around.

I got this right. But, I wracked my brain on this one for being a two star question. It makes sense to look for a motivation for the low-income entrepreneurs. However, I found myself looking for a reason to reconcile both. Can someone please explain maybe why I went that route?

Again, I did get it correct, but it took me over 2 minutes to choose the correct answer.

How does strengthening the argument involve looking for an alternate explanation? This is honestly the first time I have seen this in 1500 questions.

I genuinely become more cerebral with 5 star questions and do not diagram. Primarily because I have always been terrible at it.

That aside...

The condition of a car being used and is between a price range and is a used car less than ten years old is saying this:

If A (being a car) has a characteristic (costing x-x), then it also a subset of A (used car less than 10yr).

The condition of apartments have exactly two bedrooms being on the fourth floor is the same thing:

If A (being an apartment) has a characteristic (exactly 2 bedrooms), then it is also a subset of A (being on the fourth floor).

Maybe I am crazy. But that is how this came to be for me. Any feedback would be helpful.

I think a useful tool for this platform could be actually highlighting the gaps that are more implicit. Similar to the way the support and conclusion are highlighted in analysis. Small change could help dots connect where simple mistakes like even finding the gap in NA questions can occur. Cheers

@KarlieS D breaks the rule established that most productive programmers do not get assigned at the same work station. The stimulus says that they are not to be assigned to the same work station. E actually follows the rule that people are who not particularly productive will work together.

All answers EXCEPT D follow the rules here. which is why D is correct. Does this help?

Dude. Law will be my 3rd career. All of it has paid tribute to this being a final career chapter. 35 this year. Married. Newborn. Making a documentary. Doing everything. Go for it.

Right there with you.

Excited and feeling the nerves.

I always go into a test with this phrase in the front of mind..."I know what I know...".

@ariannee6334 "some" negates to "none"

@DD77 core curriculum and understanding the question type. I know thats such a basic answer but it literally moves mountains to understand exactly what the question is looking for.

Ive done core curriculum twice. Highly advise revisiting to hone skills and fill gaps.

@MichaelWright that would be way too much haha. Amazing option for those without strong support systems and difficult schedules.

What I enjoyed most about this passage is that the material was more digestible given that I did my graduate studies on spatial analysis in chaotic systems. So fractals and basins of attraction are familiar to me. I wish every single passage could be like this. Science is the easy stuff for me. Humanities I fall completely apart.

@mikecontact5195 I totally agree with you on AC C. If nationalists hold the belief that nations should remain untainted this makes sense...but the passage is talking about imperialist revision of cultures. So is the passage asking about the perspective for or against imperialist revision?

This is tricky LSAT writer games at play.

I dont mean to be so pointed about this, but the answer explanations in the AC subtext are becoming very vague in some cases. I understand that the video is there to support this gap.

However, this example takes a referent and then states the concept of benefit is the main point of the passage...but E does not say that clearly anyway. I would not see this as being a 3-star question. I could be wrong though. The language and passage style overall reads like an earlier LSAT perhaps.