KEVIN THE MAN, THE MYTH, THE LEGEND

Now on to Reading Comprehension..................

UgggggGgGgGgGH

Oh, I am cooked on this section.

Narrowed to C and E but got gooped by C thinking it was the better answer....

I am so good at making assumptions that I had to read the explanation from Kevin and your explanation several times before it kind of clicked. I appreciate your help!!!!

I got the right answer but it took me way too long....How are we supposed to read and process these in a timely manner?!?

Honestly how every argument on the LSAT sounds to me

I narrowed to C and E, but ultimately fell into the C trap.

I do not comprehend lol

I add my own inferences, which make me get the answers wrong. I need to focus on being more literal.

I really lose focus reading these.

This makes me realize I need to spend more time on figuring out what the authors main point is. I feel like I am struggling to find conclusions.

I always think of NA as: "What is the assumption the author is making to reach this conclusion?" and SA is: "What additional premise would make the conclusion definitely follow?"

I flopped on this one.

I switched from A to D, I thought A got to specific about younger audiences (children or adolescents). Maybe the stimulus is saying "younger adults", we don't really know if they are specifically talk about children.

I was stuck between A and D. I realized that it didn't matter if swift had never cancelled more than one or two scheduled flights on a single day... Maybe that day was the day. But that wasn't something that needed to be true.

I work in finance, so I am incredibly disappointed that I got this wrong. LOL.

I was flopping so hard yesterday, but came back to it today and got a 5/5. I did take my time... But I think SA is starting to click.

I literally COULD NOT understand A for the life of me.

Yay, I found the answer by asking myself: "What is the speaker concluding (Smith is not aware of the true meaning of her words) and in order for this conclusion to be true, that must mean that _____ (Smith lacks insight into her own social circumstances)"

Am I........ Dumb? LOL

I do so well on Necessary Assumptions but struggle with Sufficient....

I was caught between C and D, I ultimately realized that C supported/repeated the background or premise and D supplied the missing bridge needed to reach the conclusion.

I just look at it like: the authors conclusion wouldn't make sense if the author thought both doctrines allow both kind of causes. So in order for their conclusion to make sense, they must be under the assumption that one of the doctrines does not allow both factors (whether it was the first or second, I wasn't fully sure but A made the most sense)