Seconding what others have said, but if you diagram the stim to be SQ --> G6 and AQ --> G7, then you see pretty quickly that you can only prove if a committee does NOT have a quorum. The only one that does this is E, so the rest of them cannot be the answer.
When this stim is mapped out, one could either 1) prove that a statement is NOT wholly truthful, or 2) prove that a statement is a lie. After figuring this out, you can just eliminate all the other answer choices except D because D's the only one that has one of these two options as the conclusion.
Oh good Lord, I'm so sorry that happened. Well, I'm glad you were able to finish and I will keep this in mind when I register lol
The videos because for some reason hearing you or JY explain questions becomes the voice in my head when I do new questions, which helps me get them right.
I've been seeing this glitch for the past couple of weeks now where, when I finish an RC drill, I review it, and hit the "do another drill" button. But the site just takes me back to the drill I just did to answer those questions again. It used to take me back to the page where I can start a new drill. Has this been happening for anyone else?
i guess I'm the first person to comment here in like 5 years lol. i hope you all did well in law school
I feel you girl, I started studying January 2025 with a 151 diagnostic. I now consistently score in the 160s. I've managed to improve a ton on LR, but my RC score is really dragging me down. I'm currently in a mini RC bootcamp I created for myself since investing in a tutor specifically to help with RC sounds like a gamble lol.
I'm also shooting for a 170+ score by June, and the fact that I haven't hit that score yet on a regular timed exam also makes me feel like my time's been wasted. But I still fully believe in myself, and I hope you do too. A 170+ score is a challenge no doubt, but I think that come June we'll both see success stories out of this experience :)
Here's what helps me:
Drilling questions that are high priority for 7Sage
Noticing any patterns in my practice test BR and then drilling those (i.e. I recently noted that I need to work parsing out convoluted stims, so I set up a MBT/NA/Strengthen/Weaken drill)
Basically, it helps me to focus on what 7Sage says I need to prioritize, but I also find that I learn a lot when I notice those patterns in myself, work on them, and see myself improve.
I'm the same way except I tend to average a little lower under timed conditions. But my BR is usually -1/-3 for RC. Just leaving a comment here in case anyone leaves tips for closing this gap :)
tldr: negation saved my butt on this question lol.
I was super close to staying with E but I changed to B last minute because the wording in E is pretty strong. All 45 were established for this reason? What if it was all but one? That wouldn't make the argument fall apart.
D also looked tempting, but it's possible that the size stayed the same bc all the interested people are too broke to go to the shows (or some other reason).
C looks tempting, but we actually don't care about other performing arts. That won't prove or disprove our argument.
B is right because if more than 45 professional opera companies were active 30 years ago, but aren't active now, that would actually be a net decrease in the professional companies that are active now versus then. Which kinda makes the whole argument pointless if you think about it.
@alliah777799 The argument basically goes: this feather was found from that period, so it must be a bird. And since it's a bird, it's the earliest bird found to date.
But there's a gap here because what if there were other animals that had feathers that weren't birds? Thus, the argument is assuming that this wasn't the case -- i.e. they're assuming there were no other creatures other than birds that had such feathers. If there were such creatures the argument would fall apart.
Answer choice D talks about the feather belonging to an intermediate creature. But if we negate this (i.e. if we say, "the feather did not belong to an intermediate creature.") That doesn't rule out the fact that it could've belonged to some other creature that was completely different, but still has feathers.
Usually when I complete a question during a drill, one of the first stats I look at his how much time I spent on the question. But now when I hit analytics, the time I spent (and whether I was over or under the ideal time) is hidden and I need to expand that side tab in order to see my time analytics. Is this a recent update or just a glitch on my laptop?
Tbh I'd wait until June to give myself a little more time to score consistently in the 160s. However, if you're confident that you will be able to improve your PT score from now until April, go for it!
@bondo007man235 hey man i hope you're enjoying your legal career and know that this question you missed is wayyyy in the past :)
@RishabhRaj Thank you so much, I appreciate the encouragement! I have done a lot of blind review and have found it very helpful, especially for LR. I think most of my problem lies in RC; oftentimes I'll get a -4 or better for LR but a -9 or worse on RC, so it'll drag the PT score down. And then during BR I'll get anywhere between a -0 to a -3 on RC. My guess is that it's a timing issue, but I'm still trying to pinpoint my issue there. Something I've tried to implement is enjoying the passage I'm reading -- since I've always generally enjoyed reading. Have you (or anyone) experienced something similar for RC too?
@StevenM Seconding this. I too fell into this issue too where I'd pick one and then just pick the 2nd best during BR. They key is to prioritize your regular score and, during wrong answer journalling, ask yourself, "Why did I pick one instead of the other, and what can I do next time to just pick the correct answer without being sidetracked by the other really tempting option?"
I personally find BR helpful because it lets me know what I'm capable of when I'm untimed and gives me a second chance to solve the question, which usually helps me in wrong answer journalling.
A really quick way I eliminated every answer choice except B & C is to realize that we're trying to justify Jaime's argument. Jaime argues that the airline is NOT morally obligated... yaddy yaddy yadah.
In order to conclude that the airline is not morally obligated to pay Arnold, we need the "NOT morally obligated" part of this justification to be in the necessary condition. i.e., we need it to look like XYZ --> NOT morally obligated. We can really only get that kind of chain with answer choices B & C. It can't be A because AC A starts with "IF" which means it's impossible for "NOT morally obligated" to be in the necessary condition spot. Immediate elimination.
Tbh I'm not that great with "even if" statements. But just looking at these, we know we can eliminate them because they're still concluding that the airline is morally obligated to pay. Again, immediate elimination. Not what we're looking for.
So we're left with B & C. The key here is realizing that the answer to this is whatever you can answer "no" to (since we just need to take the contrapositive to conclude that the airline isn't morally obligated to pay).
Is there a reason the passenger is forced to take a later flight other than the original flight's bad weather? Yes, the overbooking. So B is not the answer.
That leaves C. Would the passenger NOT have been forced to take a later flight had the airline not overbooked? No, he'd still be forced to bc the weather was cheeks that day. So C's the answer.
This is my first time breaking down an explanation like this so lmk if it doesn't make any sense.