I have been using 7sage for a while and have run out of fully clean pts except for 159 of course. Would it be useful to use some of these older pts leading up to what is most likely my last official lsat take in january? It seems like redoing some pts or doing frankenstein-ish swiss cheese tests might be a better use of my time. Of the 101-159 I have roughly 1500 questions, this is still a lot of drilling material at the very least.

Love when I notice the bi conditionals! 

This question would have been a lot easier if the judge said, "his excuse for noncompliance with national code would have been more permissible if instead he had been cited for noncompliance witrh local codes AND ALSO had he been in compliance with national". I say this because the fact of the matter is that, even if the national code fits within the local code (as answer C says) he would still not be compliant with either local or national. So to me C is still missing information. He did not do the bare minimum anywaysn(not compliant with either in the world of answer choice C), so why national code being a subset of local matter at all, he would still not be complaint regardless of the swap (unless ignorance is a valid excuse, if you are not complaint local codes - or some principle to that effect). So, the only way it would be acceptable is if we knew he did the bare minimum in this case, or is if there is a principle which will tell us what is or is not acceptable for code noncompliance. This was my train of thought.

I have been drilling psa and sa questions for the last two weeks almost daily, and man.. SA questions are now so dang easy. I feel like the whole test has been easier now that I truly understand these questions. I would recommend anywho who has yet to truly master this question to drill it everyday for a week and the whole test will start to feel easier.

If you ever see the phrase "overwhelming evidence to the contrary" you are going to have to think with your smooth brain "Where and when did they mention this evidence?" and if you don't know where this evidence is, this cannot be the right answer. Additionally, "was it overwhelming" might help help you. Better luck next time me.

love you kevin

GWR> DISSENT

GWR> Minorities protected

Protects Minorites > Permits Criticism

A>B

A>C

C>B

This is the flawed form. Time to find what mirrors that.

B,Correct:

JM>Cap.Imp

JM>Cap.Re.Mu.

Cap.Re.Mu.>Cap. Imp.

Time for a cond log workout for the rest.

A: Int.A.Own>Pol.Admire

Ignore Own Int in favor of Nation> Admire

This seems like valid reasoning.

C: Eco. C.D> Pop. L.A.> /Abun. and V.

conc: Eco. /C.D. > Abun. and V.

The form in C is essentially

A>B>C

/A>/C

This is an invalid argument structure.

D: Intellectuals>some>/S.A.

Intellectual>/Pro.A.

Conc: Pro. A. > S.A.

A>some>/B

A>/C

C>B

I chose this wrong answer choice as my last question hail-marry after quickly choosing B. I had little time for any certainty. There are definitely some similarities with the STIM flaw, although clearly it is off. The some statement and negations preclude it from being correct though.

E: 1st N>R.T. and Conceal

3rd>some>R.M.

Conc: R.M.> should 3rd

I don't even know what to say about it. there really is not much that is mirrored here. Is it even valid. Idk? I mean maybe we can reveal motives without being 3rd. Although maybe the prescription could make sense given more information. We know that some 3rd lead to r.m. but if it had said that if you r.m. > then must be 3rd, that would be more convincing.

wow love that curve jy!

Can we all just appreciate how Kevin cooked so hard in this video. I love when he creates an analogous argument that more easily illustrates the crux of the issues.

This has been my second biggest worry outside of my LSAT score. I hope this gets uploaded on the live classes forum because I am a working man and unfortunately cannot attend. Thanks, everyone!

I have seen so many answer choices use purpose in a similar way to this. Many times purpose is meaningless on the lsat, now obvious there are times where it is not meaningless. But, I think that in our world purpose can seem so important or carry many implications, but this is not the case on the lsat. Often times on the lsat we just do not have enough info to concluded anything just by knowing purpose.

This says STR but is very similar to NA.

"it is a statement the article is intended to support". will always mean it is a conclusion/sub conc

C might just be some of the most awkward wording I have seen on the test. Not awkward because it is super hard to understand, but because it feels like there is more that was meant to be said. Maybe "with one's neighborhood" or " with the neighborhood". I was tempted to choose C because E leaves open the possibility there is not an equal increase. Still E is the best answer because C, as it is written in this form, would mean that one neighborhood may have a low satisfaction and another may have a high satisfaction. This is not what the stim is saying.

I dont know what babies kevin has been around but the must be scary

waj

if an argument takes for granted something, then that can be reframed as NA.

I did not consciously see the suff nece confusion. I think I moreso felt it here. I thought the same thing as JY, just because you break the rules does not mean you are ignorant of them.

can we talk about why B's premises are in the wrong place. I need a little bit more help on this.

There is a similar lsat question if anyone is interested and I think I got this one right because I had seen this other one multiple times.  Take a look at it - py 126, s4, q5 

Thank you high school for teaching me about this. This passage felt like a one star because of my prior knowledge!