Following

Are you still taking student?

Here's the thing I redo questions. For the most part I don't even remember him I might sometimes remember topic in LR . But a lot of the topics are very similar. Don't know if that helps.

Also for me if I get the question wrong again that I got wrong before that's a clear indication that something is not clicking that I have to work on

#feedback Help!! Does anyone have any tips for me. I get the hardest question in the set right but then miss an easy question.

Stimulus: The size of northern fur seals provides a reliable indication of their population levels—the smaller the average body size of seals in a population, the larger the population. Archaeologists studied seal fossils covering an 800-year period when the seals were hunted for food by Native peoples in North America and found that the average body size of the seals did not vary significantly.

Don't know why I struggled so much with E. I do this frequently I knew absolutely that the other four answer choices were wrong but did not choose E and chose B and C because I couldn't see how E was right then ill start justifying a wrong answer even though I know its wrong.

Key sentence: Archaeologists studied seal fossils covering an 800-year period when the seals were hunted for food by Native peoples in North America and found that the average body size of the seals did not vary significantly.

vary significantly is referring to the body size of the seals across the 800 year period. When I first read this I thought well you can't infer anything because it didn't tell us the size of the body was it big or small. But either way if the body size was small across the 800 years it was small and did not vary significantly meaning the population across the 800 years remained pretty constant. Or if the body size was larger meaning the seal population was smaller according to the stimulus and that "vary " sentence taken in context then the population did not vary either meaning the population big or small remained constant over the 800 years. When I read vary significantly I first thought it meant the body size did not vary significantly between each other meaning they were all large or all small. I did not understand that it was referencing the 800 years as well. The fossils did not vary significantly. Lets suppose they had lets suppose that they found fossils with varying body sizes some really big some really small. Well that would have told me that the populations at somepoint varied.

Seems simple now but I do miss MSS questions even the easy ones. Does anyone have any adivice?

having a lot of trouble with this question type HElP. Don't really know my task I feel like these questions don't come easy.

Does anyone else start at the bottom and work there way up. Feel like this is the best approach.

I feel like the answers are more likely to be "E'' with these simply because of the time consideration it would take you to work though A-D.

#feedbackGetting these right seems to be that it's just a good understanding of simple formal logic? Just wondering about strategy for future test taking

1. Seems like I should always flag these and do them last because you can still get a really good score by missing the 2 parallel questions in the Test?

does anyone strategies like this for these questions.

#feedback!!! Someone please make more sense on why c is not the correct answer

It is highly likely and that is what I thought of in my prephrase. I thought well I have to take the premises as true and don't try to refute those. I immidetiatly thought of calcium and said "well if they stop drinking milk couldn't that itself have a negative consequence. There could be negative consequences from not drinking enough milk!

You got this what really started to help me was reading the stimulus. Slowly and really understanding it asking myself what is wrong with this. Even if I take these premises to be true why would it still be that the conclusion is not necessarily true.

Also what helped me was it was hard for me to rethink through my thought process like I was actually doing it in the moment. So I copy and pasted the question into a word document and typed out all my answers. I typed out my thought process. SO after the stimulus I would type what I thought after reading it what the summary was what I thought it was saying etc. Then when I got to the answers I would type why I thought they were wrong and why I thought the right answer was right. This helped me see exactly where I went wrong because I would then have what I wrote(the typed explanations of me working through the question in real time) and I would compare it to the explanation video so I could see "oh I misread that , or oh I made an unwarranted assumption etc.

Starting to get really confident with this LSAT. Let me explain two years ago when I first started studying for the LSAT and then stopped I would get confident when I got the answer correct. Now I am starting to get really confident not just because I got the answer correct. But also because I am able to accurately eliminate wrong answers and explain why I got the right answer correct, and why the wrong answers are wrong. Also because im really understanding the stimulus, and I am really starting to see the patterns the test writers do in the stimulus and the wrong answers choices!!! Anyone else feel the same way!!!

JY absolutely love that you started off the video with "this is probably the hardest MOR question that we have come across". Got the question right and said "really" to this being the hardest.

175 here I come!!!

Got the correct answer but did anyone else spend way to much time on E?

I defiantly feel what you're saying. I got the exact same answer when I negated b on the first Go around. Then I seen that the author just like Kevin said "If". So I said oh this guys just being theoretical. And figured out that C is the correct answer.

I think what also confused me on this question was on the first read I thought the conclusion was by feeding the heat they could reduce their "electric bill. ". but ultimately the main conclusion was that they could save money

Okay I can tell you why I quickly eliminated E.

"Colette's purpose in poetically condensing emotional crises in the lives of characters in her novels was to explore some of the

important moral questions of her time."

Conclusion: "this charge is unfair"meaning the critics critique about her being "indifferent" to important moral questions that charge is unfair. Meaning that she was not indifferent.

Premises:" Each of her novels is a poetic condensation of a major emotional crisis in the life of an ordinary person of her time. Such emotional crises almost invariably raise important moral

questions."

Now when I read this I immidetiatly seen the gap in the reasoning. For one thing all this premise did was give us some information about what had been written. Each of her novels "is" a poetic condensation of........invariably these "writings" raise moral questions. So when I was thinking about the jump was just because she wrote about them does not mean that she's not indifferent to them. You can write an account of something from a. completely outside view. and be indifferent at the same time.

Now "E" states her purpose for writing was to expose the important moral questions of her time. Which is does not have to be true. What if her purpose was not to explore the moral questions of her time. Then the argument could still work it doesn't fall apart. let's say her purpose was to make money. which would be not to explore some of the important moral questions of her time. Then the argument still works this charge is unfair and you could still make the claim that she was not indifferent when writing.

Now B says "A novel that poetically condenses a major emotional crisis does not have to be indifferent to the important moral questions raised by that

crisis." Now that absolutely has to be true or the whole thing falls apart. Let's imagine that a novel that poetically condenses a major emotional crisis HAS to be indifferent to the important moral questions raised by that crisis. Well if this novel has to be indifferent it means that if she did this it is indifferent meaning that the charge is completely fair and the authors argument falls apart.

Don't know if that made any sense but it did to me. Sometimes I think typing replies to comments helps me more understand that I have a solid way to figure this out because I can explain it to someone else. "Anyone ever can feel free to correct me if im wrong"

Why did I get this one correct no problem but the previous question still didn't make any sense.

Drew the assumption in my head that "the reports of their past are "unreliable" (from background knowledge about self reporting) and if the past is unreliable which would be the cause then of course you cannot determine the present the outcome. Then quickly eliminated C because I thought well that is just a restating of what was already said even though they didn't already say it it was on the assumption that I drew.

Really confused on B why can't you take the contrapositive of Act+1y+Beyond→Should

/Should→/Act or /Beyond or /1y with B can someone tell me how contrapositives come into paly

Hi Everyone!!. Really think I am starting to get these sufficient assumption questions and thought I would share my thought process for others!!.

Okay here is my thought process " I first start off by reading the question stem. I know that this is a sufficient assumption question so there is going to a gap in the reasoning. I then read the stimulus and find the conclusion and find the evidence for this conclusion. The author is going to come up with a conclusion that is not 100% supported by the facts. I will give the practical example here. Conclusion "This shows that Checkers's motive in refusing to accept the coupons was simply to hurt Marty's Pizza." Now what is the evidence for this

1. Accepting them would have cost Checkers nothing,

2. and would have satisfied those of its potential customers who had purchased the coupon books.

Now when I read this I can immidediatly spot the gap and the gap is with the statement in the conclusion "This shows that checkers motive in refusing was simply to hurt Martys pizza"' Now what I said was that does not show that his motive was to simply hurt Martys there could have been so many other reasons why checkers did not want to accept it maybe he didn't have the staff to make the pizza or something like that. With that in mind I now prephrase.

Prephrase: What helped me was when someone said "the test writers really don't have much room with the answer choice. When I say that they don't have much room I mean that they have to 100% prove the conclusion with the correct answer choice the argument now because 100% logically valid and leaves no wiggle room. so prephrasing becomes easy. So in my prephrase I take the position of Martys Pizza's attorney. Now I have to convince you based solely on the facts given that checkers did this solely to hurt Martys pizza. My rephrase looked like this "any company that can accept a coupon that would not have cost them anything and that would have satisfied those of its potential customers who had purchased the coupon books does so for the sole purpose to hurt that other company"

Then I go looking for the answer and answer "A" "Any company that refuses to accept coupons issued by a competitor when doing so would satisfy some of the company's potential customers is motivated solely by the desire to hurt that competitor." The key words here are Any which means that checkers would fall into that category. The other key word here is Soley which means that there is no other option possible besides just trying to hurt the competitor.

With all that being said B was so tempting "Any company that wishes to hurt a competitor by refusing to accept coupons issued by that competitor will refuse to accept them even when accepting them would cost nothing and would satisfy its potential customers." but after looking at it I was able to see that the relationship was backwards and was the oldest mistake in the book confusing sufficient for necessary.

Final thing that helped me was zooming out to a Birds Eye view and not immideiatly trying to diagram etc. just understand what the conclusion says and what are the facts. and what they want me to do with the question stem.

I don't know if that makes sense you all but it definitely helped me !!! Anyone feel free to correct me or ask for clarification!!

#feedback#fHELP!!! Easily eliminated down to C and D. When it came to C instinctively knew that the piece of information "for future and present human populations" could rule C out because I didn't see how that was relevant but then came to D and did not understand it at all so then ended up playing back and forth between C and D and ended up choosing C. This is a reassuring problem where I will second guess my elimanations and then choose an answer that I know is wrong because didn't think D was perfect answer. Any tips of this you all?

#feedback HELP everyone.

I just need some advice a lot of the times I get the question wrong because I think I rushed the reading. "They hypothesize that exposure to germs during infancy makes people less likely to develop allergies." I skim over small words like infancy even though I understood the argument to be that "exposure during infancy makes them less likely to develop allergies" Basically I feel like I just have to slow down when im reading any advice .

#feedbackHELP!!! Okay I completely idendified the wrong conclusion the stimulus said "the gray squirrel, introduced into local woodlands ten years ago, threatens the indigenous population of an endangered owl species, because the squirrels’ habitual stripping of tree bark destroys the trees in which the owls nest. Some local officials have advocated setting out poison for the gray squirrels. The officials argue that this measure, while eliminating the squirrels, would pose no threat to the owl population, since the poison would be placed in containers accessible only to squirrels and other rodents." Now I thought that the conclusion was that grey squirrel introduced was threatening the indigenous population. Now once I seen the real conclusion I was able to get the right answer but this is a reoccurring pattern. When it says the officials argue ....... I assumed well if its talking about the officials then its obviously not the authors point just some point or background information. Any help is appreciated.

Yeah just the conditional logic rules symbols examples. What contrapositive means . De Morgan's law etc.

Send me your email I'd be glad to send it to you.

However I'll just say something that my statistics professor taught me that making the cheat sheet is a much more useful tool than having the cheat sheet so making your own would be way more use to you

#feedback#feedback Anyone got any adivice on confidence. First initial time through quickly eliminated all the answers down to E and then was like yeah that correct of course. But then I always tend to second guess myself which in turn made me go back through all the answers when that happens I start justifying the answers more and more and have the potential to choose the wrong one. It seems so hard to trust myself on this test because I have had instances on different questions where I was 100% sure and ended up getting baited into picking the wrong answer??

Hello Everyone, just thought id share some helpful tips. I was struggling with must be true question and I was like why is this so hard. First thing that helped me better it was to understand this analogy.

1. Must be true is like saying "your honor I have all the evidence right here in writing". Which the answer choice has to point back to the stimulus like saying here it is here is all the right evidence. I try not to bring in outside evidence or assumptions because I wouldn't be able to say " here look at all the evidence.

2. This was most important. I did have to re-watch all the conditional lessons and make a sheet sheet of all the rule. However, I just started taking the approach like let me look at the stimulus in a Birds Eye view FIRST and make sure I understand the facts to present them to the judge. Before I was like lets go immediately diagraming once I seen one logical indicator word. But once I understood the facts and went right to the answer choice I found I I didn't even need to diagram the stimulus to get the right answer fast.

3. I did use diagraming on some of the harder questions which did help me see the correct answer but only after I understood the whole stimulus

Hope this helps, also anyone feel free to correct me if im wrong on anything.