The wording of the first sentence pissed me off so much! Got it right in BR tho

I was like easy peasy!! A must be right~!!

OMG yes!!! thank you so much for this wonderful opportunity!

10/12 but my timing is still slow :( We'll keep trying!!!

11/15 but timing is not gooooood!!! OMG this is hard!

Embarassed to say ths question whooped my ass!

My gut chose B but i ended up with E and hella wrong

5/5 LETS GOOOOOO!

NA = bare bone minumum, back to the wall! Cannot retreat anymore!

Sufficient Assumption = enough to make the conclusion follow. Ask: “If I add this answer, does the argument become airtight?”

Necessary Assumption = something the argument must already be relying on. Ask: “If I take this answer away, does the argument collapse?”

Example:

Argument: “This is the best pasta carbonara.”

Necessary Assumption = pasta itself.

If you remove the pasta, the argument collapses immediately because it is no longer even pasta carbonara.

So:

NA = required ingredient.

For SA = powerful enough to guarantee the conclusion:

SA = a magical chef’s finishing sauce that guarantees any carbonara it touches becomes the best carbonara in the world.

If you add this magical sauce in, the dish is guaranteed to become the best!

I was so confident that C is the answer, just for JY to destroy it! I hate this Q!

I got this right, but only because of my intuition, something about judging and moral beliefs, lead me to B. I worked it out as follows: First sentence: clear moral beliefs -> see moral themes

Second sentence: more knowledge -> less moral judging

Conclusion: more knowledge -> less likely to see moral themes

But how do we get from less judging to less moral themes?

B is right because: more knowledge -> less moral judging -> Less clear moral beliefs -> less likely to see moral themes

I got hung up from first sentence, especially trying to force unlikely into Lawgic. It is NOT unlikely that they see moral themes, do NOT mean the same as they do NOT see moral themes.

Unlike M # not M. Practical meaning of first sentence is clear moral beliefs is a prerequisite for being inclined / likely to see history as moral themes. My mistake was neating only "moral themes", instead of negating the entire clause "It is unlikely...."

After getting my ass whooped by the last question, this one gives me a confidence boost!

Okay, I kinda already know this section will be my mortal enermy! As soon as he gives 2 examples" If there’s an outbreak of a virus that turns people into zombies, we should stock up on canned food." and the "If there’s an outbreak of any kind of virus, we should stock up on canned food.", I immediately thought, I mean what if the "any kind" is not the Zombie kind, so why do I care? and that's why I am wronggggg!

After being shredded by WSE questions, this is my moment to shine!! This type of Q makes so much more sense to me

I spent like 10000 hours on this one question! somehow got it right but I reall do not know how

Finally, after a slew of wrong choices, I got this one right!!!!

I interpret the correct decision making context is a professional one (job related) so I crossed out A right away :(

I like C, D, and E the same OMG

Took me 15s with A, so confident too! got me good !!

But the issue is we were taught to get into the LSAT world and forget / do not use outside knowledge. The thin line between when to use and when not to use outside knowledge is THIN!!!

there's light at the end of the tunnel! I was saying to myself for the last few Qs, uhhhh that was....easy

I got this right, but the part that helped me understand why D is correct was simplifying the conditional chain.

Let:

• F = sells tropical fish

• B = sells exotic birds

• G = sells gerbils

• I = independently owned

From the stimulus:

F and /B → G

Any store that sells tropical fish but not exotic birds sells gerbils.

Contrapositive:

/G → /(F and /B)

Using De Morgan’s Law:

/(F and /B) = /F or B

So:

/G → /F or B

We also know:

I → /G

Therefore:

I → /F or B

In words: if a store is independently owned, then it either does not sell tropical fish or it sells exotic birds.

That is equivalent to saying:

An independently owned store cannot sell tropical fish while not selling exotic birds.

That is exactly answer choice D.

The key thing that clicked for me was realizing that /F or B is just another way of saying not (F and /B).

I got this right, but the part that helped me understand why D is correct was simplifying the conditional chain.

Let:

• F = sells tropical fish

• B = sells exotic birds

• G = sells gerbils

• I = independently owned

From the stimulus:

F and /B → G

Any store that sells tropical fish but not exotic birds sells gerbils.

Contrapositive:

/G → /(F and /B)

Using De Morgan’s Law:

/(F and /B) = /F or B

So:

/G → /F or B

We also know:

I → /G

Therefore:

I → /F or B

In words: if a store is independently owned, then it either does not sell tropical fish or it sells exotic birds.

That is equivalent to saying:

An independently owned store cannot sell tropical fish while not selling exotic birds.

That is exactly answer choice D.

The key thing that clicked for me was realizing that /F or B is just another way of saying not (F and /B).

Same, I;ve done 0 lawgic and just relied on intuition :(