@Isabella! Because the question is crazy complicated already and (with the benefit of hindsight) that claim isn't used in the argument.

Realistically you would want to have it on your radar as you consider which inferences to make.

@PT180 The idea is that you shouldn't do something that would make a previous action you took unacceptable.

Let's say I made a gofundme for disaster relief which generated $40,000. Then I said "hey maybe I should just buy a car."

You might respond: "You shouldn't accept charitable donations unless you're going to use the funds for charitable purposes."

If I buy a car, my previous acceptance of those donations will be rendered unacceptable, so I shouldn't buy the car.

@Kgarciarojas9 I'm realizing (E)'s snippet is confusing without the context of the analysis section. Re-reading the analysis might help.

I split the "things are bad when..." rule into two separate principles based on the two conditions from the "or" statement. But there's an implicit extra condition inside of each -- there actually has to be some kind of harm caused.

This nuance is needed because of (A), which features intention without actual harm.

Anyway, the principle I cite in the (E) snippet only deals with the "reasonable expectation" condition.

You're right that the condition about intended harm doesn't trigger in (E), which is why that part isn't cited in the snippet.

@KN2025 have you read my snippet? your interpretation is quite similar to the one I came in with, so it addresses your point directly

@mjgangbar1794 This is spot on. Our name for this general concept is weighing factors.

@benpalook have you tried my video? could offer some clarity. happy to answer any follow-ups you have afterward

@kdorismond just one a week in advance of each test date, unfortunately

@ZeeshanbMerchant @Willyc I've got a video for this question coming up soon, but the short answer is that the LSAT is an extremely literal test, and you have to view its arguments from the perspective of a skeptical opponent.

It's a great analogy from a marketing perspective because it works on people who already agree moisturizers are important for skin. But we're talking about people who disagree with that statement. Those people won't be forced to change their minds by this "earth = skin" analogy, because their initial position is probably "the earth is not like skin."

So there's kiiinda some circular reasoning underlying the strength of the analogy -- it only works well on people who already agree with the point it's trying to make.

And okay, to put it in yet a different way: a good analogy challenges the opponent to name one relevant difference between A and B that means we shouldn't treat them similarly. When faced with a good analogy, the opponent won't be able to name one, and will be forced to abandon their position. Here the opponent could name tons of things, like "my face isn't made of dirt."

@BaileyLuber we all know ugly tutors are the best ones. no distractions

@VivianSun The LSAT is unavoidably a test of English-language fluency. Improving in that regard is absolutely doable, but it takes more time than just learning the content.

Anything is possible, but no one can give you 100% reassurance that you can realistically achieve this or that score. Put the score out of your mind and focus on improving in small ways each study session.

@DulasiTennakoon Compared to our admissions team, I lack the expertise to comment on the admissions-related stuff. I'm also hesitant to fire off a "do this and that" without knowing a lot more about your case and progress -- individuals each have unique stories and considerations.

The one thing I can say with confidence is your "no more than 3 takes" restriction is sillypants. If you're dead-set on November being your deadline, just take both. (But also you shouldn't be dead set on November being your deadline.)

I often tell my students to hunt for and diagram conditional statements in [magazines like] the economist.

@NinaC789 1) tagging in @LeviGrant for some recommendations

2) I always use "can I score [blah] by [blah]?" questions as an exercise in weak language. All tutors will say "Yes! That's definitely possible!" Guarantees are foolish in this business, and without knowing a lot more about your case it would be irresponsible to blurt out an assessment. But here's what I can say:

Take your mind off the score and focus single-mindedly on improving in some small way every study session. Your improving score should be a side effect of your content and execution mastery.

@Isabella! If you're paying for 1-on-1 instruction, you should expect an individualized experience. A tutor is right for you if they're explaining concepts and assigning interventions that feel tailored to your learning style and needs.

As for instructors v. dedicated tutors, that's entirely personal taste. Just don't work with @BaileyLuber she's hot garbage. (Joking!)

@an12 Sleep debt accumulates over two weeks. No one sleeps the night before the test, but if you've prioritized sleep in the 14 days prior, you'll be bulletproof.

@Isabella! I wouldn't worry too much about changing up your routine if it's yielding good PT results, and I wouldn't read too much into one low official, even one with a crazy-low score. It just means you need to think critically about factors that were different on your test day and work to simulate them in your practice.

If you can't think of anything that was very different, you probably need practice with in-the-moment attunement to your body and mindset. That means doing drills and focusing not on the questions themselves but on whether you can, for example, accurately predict your heart-rate at the end of the drill.

Practicing that kind of self-awareness will make it more likely you can go into your next take with your eyes open, ready to perceive whatever environmental or psychological differences may be present on test day, thereby improving your ability to glean novel and interesting lessons from the experience.

@TheBigFatPanda Congrats on the 170! Not a score to pooh-pooh.

Yours is mostly a question for admissions, but my ignorant take is that a) it matters very little, but b) if you have preview you might as well cancel to make your 170 stand out mildly better.

@Bev7 I'd target your annotation strategy. This one's hard to advise without going into tons and tons of detail, but the short version is that you should think of every highlighter color -- blue, yellow, green, and pink -- as a "word" in your annotative language. Each of the 4 words should mean something distinct. I use green for viewpoint shifts, pink for core concepts, blue for facts/characteristics about those concepts, and yellow for "memes" (secondary structures like examples, formal logic, time words like "recently", etc.).

For basically any concept in any passage, you should be able to locate it for a close read within 5 seconds. Having a robust annotative language is the best way to accomplish that.

@afk +1

@astone3 Congrats that's huge! I remember that convo too -- I always love being forced to improve.

@Bev7 I’m in the mountains rn and scared I’m gonna forget to reply to this. Wanna do it justice. If you don’t hear from me by weds ping me again.

@MadisonSolis This comment is a bit off base -- we don't know what Shayna does or doesn't know; we don't know what Shayna does or doesn't believe. We basically don't know jack.