@Sevyy appreciate you

Where is Kevin when you need him…

@Arthurxx So I got this wrong as well, looking at it right now I can see why E is correct. E actually talks about the new topic in the conclusion. We care about more cases and E is the only one that touches on new cases. Also, we must assume this and it fills the gaps in fully since we already say there are some new strain cases and concluding more local cases, well I have NO clue about the number of regular strain cases, if smaller then possibly actually less local cases

Even though it says no less food available E stumped me for a sec since i was like oh isn’t that going against the stimmy but it is not. Why are there more human attacks even though there are no more corcs and no less food. Well cuz people are coming around a lot more than before and the crocks attack when humans come to their side of the pond. We would have to assume they are taking fish where it is hurting crocs food availability.

@Sevyy Hey can you kind of elaborate a little more on the last part you wrote? “Anything n the evidence must fit that category to support the conclusion”

@Kevin Lin Thank you guys!!

Literally hate myself RN because I almost chose it but I felt like it was too easy that I was missing something ughhhhh

@Olivia850 Hi there, if I am reading this correctly, no it would not be valid. So, when you do a contra of the first sentence it will NEVER be “will harm” in the conclusion, since that is in the necessary of the first sentence. It will be in the sufficient, that’s what makes answer choice A correct. They have it in the sufficient. This question was just trying to trick you into thinking you had to have both things (not a maple who is healthy = unhealthy AND not one that has a trunk 12 or more inches in diameter). Where you just needed one to be negated since it was OR.

Is my computer tripping or is there no videos? Please let me know so I know if I am crazy or not.

Cookie cutter flaw

Okay guys, just came back from the Fast track module with Kevin Lin and he said, when negating it just has to weaken the argument, and to clarify, weaken the premise given to show its not enough to guarantee the conclusion. Hope that helps. I was always told it had to literally rip the conclusion to shreds but now this has been a game changer for me. Plugging it back in really does help with some hard NA questions. So, for this question, if All those crows were among the trapped hurts that premise to conclusion, hurting that study and making it not look so good.

WOW 7 hit me luck a truck, Thank you Kevin, you have been so helpful.

@robnav SAME

hey guys, so AC D is a pattern of wrong Acs in flaw questions. What it is doing is it is pretty much siding with the conclusion. Saying, yeah it would surely follow if all of the farmers adopted it BUT it would still happen even if not all did. Well now we are kind of having a concession with this AC and we DO NOT WANT THAT.

Okay guys, I don't know why but this helps me approach these the best and get them correct. Hopefully it helps my fellow LSAT friends. So, this is a PSAR great, when I am looking through the stimulus I look for the conclusion then I ask Why should I do this??

EX) Why should Ministry of health NOT issue scientific assessments of HI

Then I ask, what is the need for this?? Then find my premise

EX) well because political pressures cause inaccuracy

Then when going into the answers I tell myself, I NEED to bridge this or strengthen this principle of why M SHOULD NOT do something

A) why should M not issue, well cuz if no need for assess before formed, then assessment unnecessary??? ummmmmm, yeah ima pass makes no sense

B) why should M not issue, well they shouldn't be issued because they do not have strong reason to believe they are accurate (BINGO)

C) why should M not issue, because individual and orgs shouldn't exercise political power on gov.... hold on why do I care??? Also, why are you giving me a whole different thing of me should not do something?? NEXT

D) why should M not issue, well actually you should issue because , well hold on I don't care why M should issue, I care about why M shouldn't issue NEXT

E) why should M not issue, the government should firmly resist, hold on?? why are you giving me another rule to abide by, so M shouldn't issue and they should resist?? confusing GOODBYE

The best way I approach these questions is ask what is the discrepancy? Okay, why is that happening, and going to each answer chose saying well because, best way I find my AC.

where is Kevins video when you need it...

So, I got this correct but I was so confused why. So, when I read this stimmy I was like, hmmm, early jazz was based on (being like it) Jazz. It's not far from Jazz. BUT later there's a difference we strayed too far so we are not Jazz. Okay well IDK what classifies what Jazz is though?? so there's an assumption on how close it is to be classified as Jazz, or something about what it is based on (closely alike) to weaken this.

A- tricky, but no babe, maybe if it said if any improv at all then it must be class as Jazz then cool, but we are talking about something that is new which IDK though what is suff for it to BE class as Jazz, Also think of it like this, IF Jazz----> some improv, well there could be other suff things there man so we don't care, we really only care about the necessary element, so draw a bubble put some improv on top and you can put jazz and all these other genres in that bubble, hope that helps folks!

B- I really liked I am like yeah it connects back, its based on it HOWEVER idk what "heavy influenced" really means though compared to all other music genres (trying to be like E)

E- so much stronger than B, it's based on something and over ALL other music types it has more of it, yeah I don't love it but it's just so much stronger. Also, More in common. This AC is a big weaken AC if you go through other exams. It brings up this alternative thing BUT it needs to do a comparison between that group and the other group. Just take a look at (PT155S2Q15) (PT155S4Q18) the AC won't be correct if it presets an alternate and forgets about the subject heavy comparison

I find this question is very similar to PT155S2Q15, they both have a very likable wrong AC where it just gives you an alternative explanation and does not connect it back to the specifics but is more general. This is a pattern I am noticing. Let me know your thoughts...

So since it saying it’d an “effort” to improve and NOT saying “will” improve I think that is the big indicator we are. Not refuting what they said just saying it’s a different outcome.

the way I look at this is that I see most builders that don't use it (Large const) (ex large skyscraper) and the other group is people who regularly work with it (small scale like (ex just using to build a furnace of a house) , since those who (regularly use it (furnace guys) are familiar with it, then its promising for large skyscrapers. Well, ummm nooo, I don't know cuz there are two different groups here and I only stated one side I am assuming these large scraper guys aren't familiar?? E is the best AC, A doesn't make sense because we don't confuse these two things at all, and never say what's promising for small even, never stated.