@cs1880 Yeah this question is kind of bs

I understood this as a Whole-Part flaw. The argument goes from class to student. AC E goes from class to student as well. It makes the same error. This could have easily been reframed in a different example:

Objectives have three steps. Each group has 20 people. Group 1 has completed more objectives than any other group participating. Therefore, the the person who completed the most objectives was in group 1.

See how we clearly do not know if that is the case?We do not know the exact distribution within the other groups!!

Before I watched the video I was like wow why is it not A and now I cannot believe I got that wrong

@WalnutS34th I think the negation method is helpful for some but just so time consuming and pointless for others

I am in the exact same situation. I have been studying since january and my highest PT score is a 145. When i blind review questions that are within the first 13, I normally have it between a 50/50 shot. As a result, my blind review scores vary from a -11 to a -7. I am aiming for a 155. I have tried to go slow when doing these first 13 questions on LR, yet still get some wrong. I dont know if I should keep doing that or find a different approach.

@Edbnapa I think A would work if these conditions COULD lead to back pain. So if the conclusion of the passage was opposite.

I got it down between B and C and chose C. Understanding the descriptive phrasing is extremely helpful here. Answer choice B is wrong because it says that it NEGLECTS... "Vary from culture to culture" and "not distributed evenly across the globe" coincide with one another. So in doing so, B says that you are neglecting a statement of equivillant reasoning as the conclusion in the passage. aka, neglecting the conclusion given. So, B is wrong. Hope this helps.

As someone who struggles with the explanations of the SA questions, I found this video very thorough and it helped me tremendously.

I think E is wrong because it has a gap, saying that the instances in which an officer did something beyond what is reasonably expected IS SEPARATE from the instances in which the act saved someones life. There is no indication in AC E that these two clauses happen together. If you look at the passage it goes like this...

If the act saved someones life, then the officer is eligible for the award if they did something this year that went beyond what was reasonably expected.

Because the passage says that "saving someones life" is the sufficient condition, this needs to be true(on top of having an exemplary record).

E DOES NOT 100% give us that truth.

This is how I understood it and I hope this helps others.

First video where the explanations actually helped me lol

For D to be correct, you would have to assume that the existing marketing campaigns have a higher success rate/are will be more successful than this new one?

I swear this question appeared earlier on in the cirriculum

@hammer the correct answer will often be subtle, instead of a clear-cut explanation.

@epayne17 agreed lol. I have just been practicing them so I am able to recognize patterns in the AC's.

@KeziaH19 same lolllll

Does anyone have any tips on how to get better at these types of questions? I still struggle on the 1 star weaken and strengthen questions really badly. I just have a hard time seeing the bridge to the correct answer choice.

@kimwexler As someone who scored lower than you on their first LSAT, I agree that these videos are stupid. They only give hope to those who have a score of like 155 without studying.

@smcat probably because their first scores we not even "bad" lol. They probably started off with like a 155, which by no means AT ALL, is a bad score.

@epayne17 my exact reasoning for picking D

These easier weaken questions REALLY make me overthink the AC's

For answer choice D to be the correct choice, wouldn't you have to assume that the attention from the public is good? Or that the good/positive attention outweights the negative attention?? And how do we know what strength this attention is?

From being told to not make assumptions to then having a chain of assumptions is wild.

I don't know if I got lucky but I chose D and it was correct. I read through the stim and the passage. I knew I was looking for an explanation that DID NOT solve the discrepency given by the passage.

So, looking at the answer choices, only one of them, D, is using the words "no more likely" to compare two aspects of two different aged groups of people.

With these questions I get reminded of the spectrum of support, where this would fall in the middle, offering nothing because "no more likely" indicates that the same outcome could/couldnt happen. If the same outcome would happen, why is there even a discrepency??

So, D is the correct answer because it indicates there is no discrepency, when there indeed is one. Therefore, it DOES NOT explain the findings.

It is crazy how I do so well with the examples and the lessons and then do this drill and get 1 answer correct lol

Am I the only one that feels like on the easier inference questions, you do not have to have conditional relationships in your mind?

By looking at the answer choices you can determine that at least 3 are just wrong if you read the passage carefully.