I chose D as well thinking the results of practitioners and specialists combined were revealed. If this interpretation of mine were to be true, D could be an answer. However, E is the answer because "regardless of " doesn't mean the results combined, it rather indicates that the percentage was the same irrespective of which practitioner treated them. I think I should be putting more time into understanding LSAT logical phrasing.

My Interpretation: GP+Specialist ==> 31%

Actual Intend: GP ==> 31% / Specialist => 31%

regardless of whether A or B= whether A or B, the result is the same ≠ A and B were combined

9/15... doing a retake

It is an obvious fact but realizing that the only way I can get all of these questions right is by completely understanding the passage is scaring me...

I'm not upset that I got these questions wrong. I'm upset that I was certain of the answers that I got wrong:(

@OmarAbuaita why have I never thought of this. Thank you!

Interested

These questions were on the easier side but I needed this for motivation.

Answer choice C was harder to understand than the stimulus

Not sure if I'm actually getting better with assumption questions, or the questions are made easier toward the end that I FEEL like I'm getting better.

Took the longest time in this section but I guess it was worth it. Thanks to the person that commented on her method of screenshotting the questions and creating a wrong answer journal with it. It helped me a lot.

• Premise: I drink coffee.

• Conclusion: Therefore, I have been to all cafes in my town.

• Necessary Assumption: I have a throat to drink. / I am not allergic to caffeine.

• Sufficient Assumption: I have all cafe names in my town memorized.

Is it normal to get every SA question wrong on the first try... I hope it will click soon as I review wrong answers thoroughly...

update: it does get better, in baby steps though!

took foreverrrr but got them all right.....

I started to get the correct answers for RRE and WSE questions once I knew where to focus on the stimulus. For instance, in this question, the stimulus concludes "Travailler must be attempting to enlarge its consumer base by attracting new customers". This shows us that the LSAT writers want us to focus on that there should be an alternative explanation for the company to hire employees with experience in the bus tour industry. Despite the fact that their consumer base has always been traveling by air. By focusing on what the LSAT writers want us to focus on, I could easily cross out the answers that were completely irrelevant.

Personally, this was by far the question that took me the most time to completely understand...

I actually got hope for the LSAT solving this problem, though it took me forever. Despite the complicated diagramming, once I got it the answer was crystal clear. I really am sure that there is no impossible LSAT problem. Practice makes perfect I guess!!

I want to ask the LSAT tutors whether I can generalize that extreme wording on answer choices are usually wrong. Unless it is explicitly stated in the stimulus. I don't have enough experience with the problems to make a generalization.

Would it be true if I think that most of the answer choices of MSS questions have vague vocabulary such as "most", or in this case "potential"?

I have to remind myself that these groups don't consist of the whole population. It is a group with a designated number of people in it.

So I tripped up on question #4 and was trying to find a pattern/formula to understand this.

The chain for #4 is commercial airline pilot --> able to perform "Lazy Eight" --m--> enjoy flying.

Can I say that this is an invalid conclusion because of the structure that "most" comes after the "all" statement? Would any other chain that "most" comes after "all" also be invalid because "most" is a subset of "all"?

I think the difference of the Disney argument compared to the other two is that this argument is conditional. The last sentence says "must have", which means in order for Walt to receive a Genie fast pass he had only two options - either to offer propitiations to Mickey Mouse or to prostrate before Goofy's alter in Magic Kingdom. Since he already received the pass, but didn't prostrate himself to anything the only option left for him is to requisite propitiations.

Tiger Argument: Not all movies are intended for audiences of all age, in fact, violent movies can cause mental disorders for children under the age of 10.

Disney Argument: The premium movie theater allows access to people with a premium annual pass. Premium annual pass holders have to either buy an additional snack combo or pay an additional 50dollars to watch 10 movies in the premium theater. I do have a premium annual pass but hate snacks, therefore I have to pay an additional 50 dollars to watch 10 movies in the premium theater.

Trash Bin Argument: The spilled over popcorn in the theater is covering the floor. Alongside the popcorn on the floor, there are also traces of butter. A kid coming out of the theater has butter around his fingers and mouth, and his popcorn container is barely containing anything. I suspect that the kid is the one that has spilled the popcorn in the theater.