Starting to see how NA questions are really close to weakening questions...

I have found that my conditional lawgic is lacking... Mapping out all of the answers for parallel flaw or Parallel MOR has helped a bunch!

One of my biggest problems is not reading carefully enough. This could be reading something but not focusing on the details, or even just being too confident on an answer choice and skipping the reading of a couple of other answers.

carelessly read the question and answer. I chose E which was not even close, in BR I chose C.

When two answers feel like the same, that is a red flag to re-read the answers for missed details.

I tried to do this passage while at work... that was a BAD IDEA... I misses so many details while helping patrons... lesson learned... I need to study in a dedicated study space...

GO KEVIN.. WHOOP WHOOP

I should have went with my gut for this one...

for q27 it still is hard from to see how E is wrong... I se how D is right, but E still feels tempting. Can anyone help me on this?

my lr training has flown really well into rc... i feel like i already have developed many of the habits necessary for rc

big Kevin fan here!

could have gotten this right just by focusing on the verbiage

one odd but possible weakener for the Sales managers argument could be, that there was a recent menu change, and now they consider the sale of sides or entrees a meal. Or perhaps there was a proportion change, now you have to order twice as much to get the same amount of food and for that reason it looks as though the meals are going up when in reality portions have gotten smaller.

I was confused because I did not see the flaw in the first argument... Glad to hear there was none... luckily I did not waste time on that thought

#help is a negation of some, all or none... I have heard that it is none.. but did jy say it is also ALL.. how does this make sense?

I chose D initially, and then went to B for whatever reason(I took this yesterday)... Looking back on it I could have figured out B was wrong because it actually concedes the conclusion...

such an easy question..

the correct answer felt so weak... I got it with POE but was not sure exactly how it was right.

Going from being in the dark on the various nuances of a question, to then being aware of said nuances really feels so satisfying.

I got this one right, but I have gotten more wrong than I would like... I do not think I should feel bad about wrong answers... I am still very much shaping how I view this test and how I do each question... So getting them wrong is normal and a integral part in learning where my gaps in knowledge are on this test!!!

I was sacrificing confidence for speed... I should have read more... you got me lsac.. HA......

I remember doing this question a long time ago, and I thought the answer was bullshit... Doing it now it does not seem too bad

this curriculum makes me feel so dumb : , ( I finally have gotten a few right in a row though..

After mapping this out, is the best course of action to hunt for the answer of fully content> /want prosper... and then if this is not the answer, would you go to fully content>/kind? #help Also I have noticed that these concessions usually are general statements that do not have much of an impact on the conditional statements... Is it a good idea to be a bit more amendable to not fully graphing these concessions out, as they don't typically pertain the argument, or is this perhaps a dangerous habit to build.

I have been doing well at the lsat without really thinking too much about suff or nece... I should I have seen this... this question was to easy to miss...