Hi guys I have a tip for these questions. Feel free to let me know if it works for you or even if my tip falls short of anything. So after you read the stimulus, identify the conclusion. I like to highlight it if thats your jam too. And then see how the excerpt from the question stem relates to the conclusion.

If you highlight the conclusion and the excerpt is not the conclusion. Congrats. You can cross off every single answer choice that mentions conclusion. Then you will have to decide the excerpts role to the conclusion. Does it go against the conclusion? Does it support the conclusion?

JY.... analogy by time blew my mind.

Congrats! Feel free to modify my current timing strategy for LR

1-5 in 5 mins

11-20 in 18 mins or so

6-10 in 5 mins or so

Remainder on 21-25

I am at a loss for words. I learned about kicking up the domain before there was a video about it and I struggled understanding it. Thank you so much 7Sage. The video is soooo goood!

JY blessed us with a break by throwing a 1-star question at us

I’m in a fantasy football league with friends. Quick refresher: you draft real players, set a lineup, and your team scores based on how those players do in real games.

This week Friend 1 was playing Friend 2. The score was 120 to 135. Friend 1 was down 15, and here is the kicker: he left his quarterback slot empty. Friend 2’s whole roster had already played, so 135 was his final score.

I told Friend 1, “If you want any chance to win, you need to start a QB.” Friend 2 jumped in and said, “Even if he adds a QB, that does not mean he will get 16 or more points.” I said, “Right, it is not a guaranteed win. But without a QB, there is zero chance.” That is the point. It is a necessary condition. A QB does not ensure victory, but no QB ensures defeat.

Shoutout to 7Sage. LSAT necessary assumptions can even help you talk trash with logic.

This question was interesting because we can eliminate four of the answer choices just by reading the first argument. Dang!