Read, Read, and Read. What I have been doing to help with my vocabulary and keep up with long passages is spending at 20-30 minutes reading an article from history, science, law, crime, health, etc.

Helps me get back into the process of reading long passages.

Every day before bed, I would pick a topic I wanted to read about.

Look online about that topic, and just read the article.

Really helps exercise my brain muscles when it comes to reading.

@MyNguyen Why you flipping me off?

Anyone actually reading these...? Man...not me

4/5 THEN 5/5 on BR. Got one 5-star, one 4-star, and three 3-star questions. Not too bad... Got the 4-star question wrong the first time, but everything else was correct.

Highlight method coming in clutch...again and again!

Follow the Highlight method!

Highlighting the parts that align with the stimulus really helps:

This flaw is basically a flaw of probability.

Say you have 4 coins.

On one coin you guess Heads. Great. You are right! That was a 50% chance.

Second coin you have another 50% chance of getting it right.

BUT.

On the whole, to get all 4 coins guessed right, you have a 1/16 or 0.0625 chance of getting all 4 coins heads up, or all coins tails up.

That is the part-to-whole flaw. You have a higher probability of getting the parts right, flipping one coin, BUT you have a low probability that the WHOLE (4 coins heads up) right.

@laurenstudies Look at the conclusion of the author's argument, "Although low-wattage bulbs cost more per bulb than normal bulbs, their advantages to the homeowner are enormous, and therefore everyone should use low-wattage bulbs".

The author is talking DIRECTLY to the homeowner, US, about these amazing low-wattage bulbs that last longer than normal bulbs. He says to us, "Everyone should use low-wattage bulbs".

We the homeowner, just don't care about how much profit the company makes.

The negation rule is really saving my life. These necessary assumption questions are a breeze.

1st. Identify the conclusion and premise.

2nd. Go through the answer choices and find which one is necessary through the negation rule.

I do the negation rule in my head. This question only took me a minute to get it right.

@NylaWhite ME TO

Watch out for, "but not otherwise". That group of words means, and.

So, you need to have an exemplary record AND do something this year that exceeded what could be reasonably expected of a police officer...saved someone's life.

Answer choice A links the conclusion to the principle.

Answer Choice A:

In saving a child from drowning this year, Franklin and Penn both risked their lives beyond what could be reasonably expected of a police officer. Franklin has an exemplary record but Penn does not.

Why is this right...?

1. Franklin and Penn both risked their lives saving someone. Great! This satisfies the sufficient condition that both officers saved someone.

2. BUT, Penn doesn't have an exemplary record.

3. Therefore, Franklin is eligible for the reward, but Penn is not because he doesn't satisfy the other sufficient condition, having an exemplary record.

Principle:

Exemplary record AND saving someone's life --> eligible for Mayor's reward.

Here is the conclusion of the principle:

Officer Franklin should receive a Mayor's Commendation, but Officer Penn should not.

Explanation for why B is wrong:

Of all the candidates who do not already work for Arvue, Delacruz would be the most productive in the new position.

1. Watch out for bolded words such as of and who. These two words create a superset for all the candidates who do not work for Arvue.

2. It is saying, out of a superset of all the candidates who don't work for Arvue, Delacruz is the most productive...this doesn't match the stimulus.

3. The stimulus is that, out of a superset of candidates who don't work for Arvue, Delacruz is in the subset of the most productive. The most productive is the subset of candidates who are not working for the company.

Honestly, had trouble reading this question. Had to fall back on highlighting each clause.

In the Principle:

Clause 1: When none of the fully qualified candidates for a new position at Arvue Corporation currently works for that company.

Clause 2: It should hire the candidate who would be most productive in that position.

Simplified: None of the qualified candidates for a new position, work at Arvue Corporation currently.

In the Application:

Clause 1: Arvue should not hire Krall for a new position.

Reason: Arvue if fully qualified, but not the most productive.

Clause 2: Delacruz is a candidate and is fully qualified.

Reason: Delacruz is the most productive.

Highlighting and breaking down these principles and application make it easier to digest.

Crossed out all answer choices other than B and E. Then I chose E when comparing both answer choices. Took me 3 minutes and 33 seconds, but I got it right.

Breaking down each stimulus into its singular clauses HELPS TREMENDOUSLY.

@AutonomousTacticalTheory

4/5 then 5/5 on my blind review. Got three 3-star questions and two 2-star questions. Feeling good!

Easiest question of my life...

Basically, I put myself in the shoes of the homeowner. I thought to myself, "Why should I buy a low-wattage bulb?" and "How would I go about making that decision?"

Certainly, no one cares how much profit a company makes off of selling the product. I only care about how it works, what do people say about it, etc.

These LSAT writers are crazy... I got the question right, but looking at the time... Sheesh. We have 1 minute and 18 seconds to answer the question.

BFFR!

Takes me a minute to ready bro, I need at least 3 more minutes to find the answer.

@LauraBolivar Gotta start somewhere! At the very least, you are getting strengthening questions right, which is good. When you do drills, you should do more of the weakening questions to help beef up your accuracy.

I got this right with only a minute over. Remember everyone.

If all the statements above are true, then you shouldn't make assumptions based on the statements that make it not true.

For example, with question E) If Pat rents a movie from the Main Street location, then she will not receive the special discount coupon.

This is wrong automatically because in the statements it says, Pat...can receive the special discount coupon".

Also, if Pat can receive the special discount coupon AND use it at a location that isn't aloud if you are a member of the VideoKing Frequent Viewers club, then Pat must not be a member. Therefore, D must be correct.

University administrator: Any proposal for a new department will not be funded if there are

1. Fewer than 50 people per year available for hire in that field and

2. the proposed department would duplicate more than 25 percent of the material covered in one of our existing departments.

3. The proposed Area Studies Department will duplicate more than 25 percent of the material covered in our existing Anthropology Department.

   However, we will fund the new department.

1. Which one of the following statements follows logically from the university administrator's statements?

a. The field of Area Studies has at least 50 people per year available for hire. 50 or more so correct.

b. The proposed Area Studies Department would not duplicate more than 25 percent of the material covered in any existing department other than Anthropology. Incorrect.

c. If the proposed Area Studies Department did not duplicate more than 25 percent of the material covered in Anthropology, then the new department would not be funded. Incorrect.

d. The Anthropology Department duplicates more than 25 percent of the material covered in the proposed Area Studies Department.

e. The field of Area Studies has fewer than 50 people per year available for hire. Incorrect.

Context: Baxe Interiors, one of the largest interior design companies in existence, currently has a near monopoly in the corporate market.

Concession: Several small design companies have won prestigious awards for their corporate work, while Baxe has won none.

Conclusion: Nonetheless, the corporate managers who solicit design proposals will only contract with companies they believe are unlikely to go bankrupt, and they believe that only very large companies are unlikely to go bankrupt.

1. The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?

a. There are other very large design companies besides Baxe, but they produce designs that are inferior to Baxe's. wrong.

b. Baxe does not have a near monopoly in the market of any category of interior design other than corporate interiors. Incorrect.

c. For the most part, designs that are produced by small companies are superior to the designs produced by Baxe. Incorrect. Several and most aren't equal to each other.

d. At least some of the corporate managers who solicit design proposals are unaware that there are designs that are much better than those produced by Baxe. Incorrect.

e. The existence of interior designs that are superior to those produced by Baxe does not currently threaten its near monopoly in the corporate market. True.

Wow. I got it right with a 1:53 seconds over. Here is how I got to my answer D and not B.

Answer D: the failure of the general public to believe in extrasensory perception is good evidence against its existence

/General public belief --> /extrasensory perception real

This is stated in Waller's argument:

If extrasensory perception were real --> general public believes it

Now for Chin:

thus public opinion (general public), will always be biased in favor of such skeptics.

Chin would most STRONGLY disagree with Waller's argument and the statement that: "the failure of the general public to believe in extrasensory perception is good evidence against its existence".

For B I crossed this answer choice immediately. Waller NEVER explicitly or implicitly mentions skeptics. All he mentions is the general public.

Example 2. ) Gaby's and Logan's comments provide most support for the claim that they disagree about:

Gaby: In school, children should be allowed fully to follow their own interests, supported by experienced teachers who offer minimal guidance. This enables them to be most successful in their adult lives.

Logan: I disagree. Schoolchildren should acquire the fundamental knowledge necessary for future success, and they learn such fundamentals only through disciplined, systematic instruction from accredited teachers.

Gaby agrees with: children should be allowed fully to follow their own interests, supported by experienced teachers who offer minimal guidance.

Aka children should be on their own to learn their interests, they don't need much guidance from teachers.

Logan disagrees: Schoolchildren should acquire the fundamental knowledge necessary for future success, and they learn such fundamentals only through disciplined, systematic instruction from accredited teachers.

Children need much guidance from teachers.

Answer is B. the extent to which teachers should direct schoolchildren's education

Why?

• Both speakers seem to have a disagreement onto the extent of teachers involvement in children's education.

• Gaby believes children need minimal guidance from teachers in their education, while Logan believes children need more guidance from teachers.

Example 1) Peter and Yoko disagree over whether today's children's stories:

Peter: Unlike in the past, most children's stories nowadays don't have clearly immoral characters in them. They should, though. Children need to learn the consequences of being bad.

Yoko: Children's stories still tend to have clearly immoral characters in them, but now these characters tend not to be the sort that frighten children. Surely that's an improvement.

Peter believes Most children's stories nowadays don't have clearly immoral characters in them

Yoko disagrees, she believes stories still tend to have clearly immoral characters in them, but now these characters tend not to be the sort that frighten children

D. tend to have clearly immoral characters in them. This is the answer.

Why?

Because Peter believes most children's stories don't have immoral characters in them. He disagrees with D.

Yoko agrees with D, "Children's stores still tend to have clearly immoral characters in them".