Could someone explain to me why the whole application of rule 3 makes sense logically? Why does increase profits mean decreased traffic congestion.

To be 100% honest. I'm even using the support spectrum to help find the answers. I just read the stimulus, determine the key disagreement, and search the answer via the elimination method. Or find the right answer and stick to it. Should I be trying to use the support spectrum more?

Right Now I am doing as good as I can. I am working full time while studying. I got accepted into the law school that I wanted to go to. But I am taking the LSAT one final time to boost my score to get more scholarship opportunities from the school. I'm focusing more on concept comprehension more than speed. I take the test in April so I am averaging 20+ hours a week in study time. The material is helpful. Pray that I can finish strong y'all!

I was speed reading and missed that "no" on question 2. lol...Better luck next time haha.

Got all 5 right! Including the non-argument question. Getting better, progress is linear.

I think I'm starting to understand how the LSAT likes to structure arguments. When you structure the premises and the conclusion for your argument, you have to measure their strength based on the relationship between the premises and the conclusion. If the premises are super duper true, it makes the argument really strong. But if the premises are reasonably true, they may have merit, but they can be still weakened by criticism. In the tigers argument. tigers are mammals is a way more valid premise than the aggressiveness and ability to harm others premise. Because we know that tigers are mammals, but we can't always be certain aggression and ability to harm are always unsuitable. That is what's key with assumptions. Reasonableness.

Still don't understand why B is wrong and C is correct. Could someone help? #help

This was a cleverly designed test. I fell for it hook line and sinker. Even if you notice patterns on the test, always make sure to read over the stimulus for each question.

Tiger Analogous: Not every NFL player plays for the money. Afterall, there are some players who take pay cuts to help pay better players to join their team's roster.

Disney Analogous: The Country club is offering a brand new golf cart as part of a membership tier list for its members that have held memberships for over a decade. You can also receive it if you donate 10,000 dollars to the community fundraiser. Chester has brand new golf cart but hasn't donated to the community fundraiser. Therefore, Chester must have had a membership with the country club for over a decade.

Fat Cat Analogous: My cookie jar has been knocked of the counter, it had chocolate chip cookies in it. My toddler is standing near the counter smacking their lips as they do when they've just eaten. Therefore, it was probably my toddler who knocked over the cookie jar.

I chose A because I thought the point was general enough to supported by the stimulus. I didn't choose D because I didn't read the line that says "survey that is representative of the adult population of Denmark". I would have chosen that had I been more attentive to the stimulus.

TLDR: Too general and chose A, would have chosen D if I didn't get bored reading the stimulus.

I keep mixing up the order of the logical indicators and the necessary conditions. Can someone explain to me why questions 1 and 3 are not reversed? As in:

Host cells grow - Chlamydiae

/Chlamydiae - /Host cells grow

or in Question 3:

Display of colors - Roses

/Roses - /Display of colors

I watched the video and the explanation wasn't very helpful.

For question 14, all divergent means is a different correct? So all its saying is Passage A and B use divergent (different) evidence to find different conclusions?

Or am I missing something?

I chose C. Not realizing that its already stated in the premise. We are being asked what assumption helps make the argument work. i.e., What makes the assumption sufficient.

A: Does nothing to help the argument. Just states the number of people that get the flu.

B: Just states how influenza strains vary year to year.

C: This is just part of the premise. It does not make the argument sufficient.

D: This fits the argument. it ASSUMES that the strain deemed prevalent that year is the one you will get protection for, where it was not deemed prevalent previously. So, it logically follows that D is correct. Since sufficiently makes the argument properly drawn.

E: This is just about side effects.

Does that make sense?