4/5 without blind review. After BR I almost got number 2 wrong it was between C and D and I chose D just because "unfavorable position" made me think it mattered more even though wool products decreasing like crazy meant the quantity demanded for wool would also drop. UGHHHH. I also took a bunch of time to understand what was really being said so I picked the best answer. And DAMN 2 stumped me.

I WILL SCORE A 170 MANIFESTING

got it wrong first try then I redid it and got it correct BR

Got all 3 correct, I just took a ridiculous amount of time. I was having a really hard time making the diagrams in a way that could help me. So I just threw them away and just diagrammed something random that would help me instead. It wasn't exactly Lawgic or diagrammed the way they did it.

This just confused me. The explanation for why its necessary is just its necessary and the explanation for sufficient is just its sufficient. That did not help me at all.

I got 4/5 the No confused me on the first but I remembered the rule after I missed it. #5 I got the answer I just didn't know how to express it in logic

Use the rules, did the diagram, took me 7 minutes and 52 seconds but I aced it

4/5. I missed #2, the easiest question on here but I am STILL confused. I immediately crossed out the right answer on #2. That was because it assumes that a change in chemical amount will have a different effect. How does it weaken the argument if it's not even confirmed???? Just because there is more chemical in glass A vs glass B, that does not necessarily mean anything at all. Maybe you just need even a dash of chemical to get the same exact prescription reaction. And that same reaction happens if you have two fold of the chemical. Somebody help please!! It's a 97% gets it right question, I aced the difficult ones but i'm stumped here for some reason

This is pretty simple

@OliverJakacki probably not, you are building the foundations your brain needs to connect the dots. The more you diagram, you will become efficient and eventually just start seeing the patterns. Like when you're a kid arithmatic needs diagrams, as you get older you recognize patterns and can do it in your head.

So I ate this argument up which is harder but missed the last one. Oh okay

Didn't we just learn in a module the difference between negation and assuming the opposite and how we SHOULDNT be doing that?? So why is "only if their financial problems are solved" equivalent to not having money problems?? Just because you don't have money problems does not necessarily mean your financial problems are solved. I wrote down "Financial problems are solved" as an entirely new category, it wasn't "no money problems." I'm SO incredibly confused now. How is don't have financial problems equate to financial problems being solved?? Solving financial problems implies you had them in the first place, not having financial problems could be you just never had them. Both of them have a CLEAR distinction. So I don't see how the last sentence is a contrapositive to the first... This is also why I was so confused between B and C. Why do they mean the same thing?? Solving serious financial problems and not having serious financial problems are NOT the same thing??

YUP 5/5

@mutayeb YUP 5/5 peasy

5/5 LETS GO. These make sense once you start recognizing the words. BUT I still dont get the logic behind why the words are working??

5/5 LETS GO

Missed 4 because I was just like wtf, looked at it after and was like OHH. Number 5 made no sense to me. How do we know which one is a group 1 or group 2; do we just use that cheat sheet?? How can I use intuition to know It's stumping me.

I thought only was a necessary condition indicator?? So for 3 why is the stuff that follows not necessary????

I understand the RULE. I got to the right answer knowing the rule that necessary assumption cannot trigger the sufficient clause. But logically idk what that means, I just know the rule.

@OliverJakacki But it can be implied. If it discusses planets in outside our solar sytem being difficult, it can be inferred that planets inside our solar system aren't especially when supplemental information about the technology tells us that fact.

Clean SWEEP. Lets go!

@LogicallyUnreasonable Like for some of these, the answers are incorrect because alternative world examples exist to disprove them, even though they aren't existing in the stimulus universe.

@LogicallyUnreasonable GLAD IM NOT ALONE. I just asked this same question a few videos back lmfaoo.

Okay this makes sense, the only thing super tricky for me is unless!!

How do I know when the LSAT wants me to treat the information in the stimulus as the complete universe of possibilities versus when it allows me to leave open the possibility of other causes, explanations, or facts that aren't mentioned? I got this wrong because I chose A and then I chose B, both are wrong because alternative explanations can be why profitability decreases. I didn't even think about those alternative possibilities because I was focused on only the stimulus on this question as the only possibility in the universe. How do I know when/when not to seperate the LSAT universe from the real world.