My error on this one was in diagramming because I put well-known after "well organized" and "self-motivated" in my diagram (to the right). Yet "well known" should be the sufficient condition for "highly successful" because it says "only those who are highly successful are well known among their peers." That's a conditional indicator we can use for the necessary condition. Then it proceeds from "highly successful" to "well organized and self-motivated" and none of the people who are self-motivated regret their career choices.
Yet my mistake with (E) was that I flipped the relationship between highly successful and no regret. Then for (C), I didn't pick it initially because I misread it. I assumed that it required the contrapositive because it had a "no" in it (Group 4 LI). But when I just read it straight, it became clear that it said, if you are a well-known salesperson, then you do not regret your career choices. And following the correctly diagrammed form from the left (well-known) to the right (/regret), I can see that this is correct.
This one confused me a good bit. But I now know that it's not (A) bc we're going with the astronomer's assumption that Earth remains motioneless, so (A) doesn't work. Then this is the same issue with (D). I simply assumed that bc it was in the argument, that it was a weird assumption I could point out. So if either are not true, then it doesn't really matter (this is what made most sense to me).
Then, (D) is true bc if this is not true, then the whole argument is kaput. I need to emphasize this habit more: testing what would make the argument fall flat when I plug it into the argument.
Hey all!
I've been using a WAJ for as long as I've been studying LSAT, and I've read the forums from high score tutors/7Sage people about how/what to use it for, but I had one unanswered question from this. Notably, do people usually write out the question prompt alongside their explanations/answers/reasoning? I do it for LR bc doing it for RC would take ages, but I'm not sure I need to write down the question so much as the question number (e.g. PT126.S4). Thoughts?
I learned from this that the vocabularly distinctions on the LSAT can be a little tricky. I assumed that cuisine would be equivalent to food, which I still think it is, but so be it. Yet (D) also is wrong for adding "good cultural values" here because we don't know what that is according to the premise. The closest thing is "culture" and that's different and not defined as "good." Either way, "good cultural values" don't show up in the causational link at all. Nevermind the mistake that (E) makes that poor soil and bad farming practices account for food being bad whenever it is bad. There are clearly other reasons in the chart.
I assumed for this one that (A) was closest to right because of its rejection of aesthetic restrictions. But it is far too extreme for what the text says. The text says Gilliam rejected conventional ideas/aesthetically conservative things, but (A) takes this to the extreme.
My hesitation with (D) was that the Color Field style was only briefly mentioned and wasn't described like this. But I get the reasoning now that since the stem asks what "Gilliam would be most like to agree with" gives more support to the idea that we can view the Color Field style more closely to how Gilliam specifically did alongside the overall movement.