This: This is significant because as many people consume caffeine as consume any one of the other addictive psychoactive substances.

This sentence really pissed me off. Had to read it 3 times.

These MSS Conditional types are the bane of my existence!!!

Took me forever to answer the question. I read the stimulus, tried to answer and was like nope, I need to diagram this all out and chain it together, so then had to reread the stimulus. then change them up on a piece of paper. No way I have enough time for this question on the LSAT. My brain just cannot do that all in my head. For those who can, you are not human!

This question type will be the hardest thing for me on the LSAT.

Priscilla's first long sentence messed me all up!

Is it safe to say that if both speakers have conclusions, a good strategy is to disregard the premises and hunt for the AC based off the conclusions? After getting through what Priscilla was saying at first, I finished the stimulus, went hunting and referenced only the conclusions of both speakers and got the AC correct.

Can anyone confirm that it is a good strategy.

don't like this strategy. it just added confusion after I was already starting to grasp it all. Like others have said, using the same examples for this new technique confused me.

I easily understood the stimulus; I had an excruciating time trying to understand the ACs. I was stuck on D, going back and forth with A, thinking no, def not A, then comparing to the others. Finally selected D not understanding it correctly until I went to blind review and spent 10 minutes on AC D. I got it right, but it took me forever to be comfort with my AC

I am getting them all right, I think. My diagrams look slightly different, but to me seem the same. I am not sure if I am wrong in my answers.

ex:

Q.3.

succeed -> emotional connect-prod sold

/emotional connect-prod sold -> /succeed

answer provided:

success → emotional-connection

/emotional-connection → /success

Q.4.

accu info and considerable interest -> good journalism

answer provided:

acc-info-sub-int → good

acc-info AND sub-int → good

I took my time on this one, I knew the answer but thought, B is too obvious, no way, let me peel this onion slowly the way J.Y. would and came to the same answer.

#WWJYD

D was the only one that made sense to me! jk jk jk... I selected correctly. 😅

You all talking about the grammatical challenge of using "their" instead of "her", and how it's women's turn now, just stop it! Why care about it. His or her???... the author can be a he or a she. Perhaps the person writing this is a female and that's her default method of writing, as mine is to use "his" in this context.

#3 seriously? I don't care who you are, you more than likely will get that wrong. The answer makes no sense.

I don't believe the analytics!

Got this one right, but holy moly I had to read answer D multiple times because I wasn't sure what it was saying. Then I did, and knew it was it. I really hate how the LSAT words things. Speak English, damn it!

I wish some of these video lessons would apply the information to LSAT questions. These are still very good lessons!!

1 out 5 sad sad

What I cannot wrap my head around is putting the examples in reverse. Making the statements sufficient.

NYC -> USA

Being in NYC is sufficient for being in the USA. I can be in Florida (currently am) and also be in the USA.

How do I do the same for the milk/store example?

Store -> Milk

It is sufficient to go to the store in order to buy milk? But, every time I go to the store, I have to buy milk; I cannot go to the store to buy bread, without having to buy milk. If I buy milk at a farm, then the necessary statement would not work, am I right?

I guess I need help with deducing store -> milk to a sufficient statement. My brain cannot make sense of it.

Stupid internal assumptions!

Need more skill builders per lesson. That way we can better master the skills before we get to You Try sections.

Isn't question #4 a "Most" before "All" type? Which should conclude with A -m-> C. However, in the answer provided, it says it concludes with A <-s-> C. In the video, the premises are in line with the "Most" before "All" lesson which concluded with a "Most" statement. He does explain why it is a "Some" statement, but it is hard to conclude that without sitting for 30 mins trying to think of every aspect that was talked about in this made up hut. This is frustrating.

I just don't see how I could do these types of questions in the right amount of time on the LSAT. Practice, practice I guess.

Assuming Mr. Fat Cat likes salmon, the premise states that the contents are spilled, including the salmon. Could we argue that it could not have been Mr. Fat Cat since the salmon is still spilled and not gone

Causal relationship questions require more work for me than all others. I hate them. Other types, I can read it, and work it all out in my head. Anyone feel the same way?