I'd roll one with Rolanda

@ChristopherSpencer There's a shit ton of them on the test, too.

@KikeHernándezLuvr Quasimodo predicted all this.

Billie Holiday ;(

@Min One thing I told myself while figuring this question out was "time is relevant but it's not determinant." Meaning, it took me forever to figure this question and I just kept thinking, why am I not figuring this out faster? But that's ok! Right now however much time it takes us to figure these questions correctly is only relevant, but it doesn't determine our success.

Sheesh. NO POE could help with this one. Figured it out but SHEESH!

@Cweathers Oh yeah, LSAT test makers to fuck you up. It's full on psychological warfare. The LSAT is probably the hardest standardized professional test. Harder than the MCAT, GRE, etc. for that reason.

@AidenMagley thanks lil aiden

Veronica and I are trying this new fad called uh jogging, or I believe it's yogging. It might be a soft J. I'm not sure, but apparently you just run for an extended period of time. It's supposed to be wild.

@JoshuaZeigher 5/5 crew. enjoy the sushi

Pat never had the makings of VideoKing member

Not gonna lie, I have a thing for DeMorgan. It's becoming a problem.

A video lesson. Are you not entertained!? Isn't it why you are here?!

@AugustusGreenwood I think you missed the implied/assumed premise that the educational program is the ONLY thing that is causing high performances. This is the implied assumption. Meaning, the only reason why the Educator concludes that the program should be expanded is because they believe programs causes better performances.

But what if this implied assumption is wrong? What if it's not the program itself. It's an alternative factor that is causing the program to be successful? What if it's that most of the "stay at home moms" are actually stay at home kindergarten teachers? That weakens the assumption that it's the program.

@joycetheok I had the same issue. But I believe a "counterexample" would be something like a counter-premise. Notice the observers' gave a causal hypothesis: "this decline is caused by..." There was no evidence provided. Rather, the observers noticed a phenomenon then followed up with what they thought was causing the phenomenon. Because the observers did not give any evidence/example for their claim, there was no evidence or example to counter.

@JosephWendt "The arsonist had oddly shaped feet" - Ron Burgundy

@CarlosHernandez03 Yeah, careful. Many is not less than Most, because again, many is talking about numbers while most is talking about percentages. Numerically, many can cover most just like some can cover most and all. But proportionally (%) is where the distinction happens. So just gotta be careful not to confuse numbers for percentages.

@EJay Both are indicator words. But the "without" negates the "no" Essentially it renders the conditional a double negative.

@pbahoura It's a bad thing. Because you are not "reversing and negating". The right negation ould be to flip "deer" to the SUFF and negate that, and then make the "hunting permitted" into the necessary condition and negate that.

• So it should look like this:

  • /Deer Pop --> /Hunting Permitted.

The reason for this is that not doing X, or negating the sufficient, does not guarantee that you will NOT do the necessary.

• Think about it like this: Driving a car guarantees that at bare minimum you are going somewhere.

  • Driving is the subset of going somewhere.

    • Now negate "driving". Does NOT driving guarantee that you are NOT going somewehre? NO. Because you can take an Uber, or you can have a friend drive you.

For me, any time I see a Sufficient negation I say "Necessary is wild" meaning, anything can happen. Negating the SUFF simply means the necessary condition can do whatever because nothing guarantees it anymore.

@petvma Mr. Fat Cat's mom grew up during the great depression, but depression to her was a trip to Six Flags

I eliminated every answer twice, and ultimately couldn't figure it out until my third untimed read in BR.

What's confusing is that we are applying p2 framework to p3 action. P2 could split into two paragraphs. The first part of p2 is what is commonly assumed, based on consumers, economists, and entrepreneurs. The assumption made by consumers, etc, is that people engage in risky behavior with "their personal assets" ($100 or $300) if there is potential for more gain. This is the "gambling" aspect. If there is a risk to gain more money, then the risk is worth it.

Then there's a second part of p2 that begins with "Nevertheless" (I can't believe I missed this part and I punched myself in the face after). We are still talking about personal assets, but we are no longer talking about the risky behavior of consumers. The recent studies show that some people risk their assets "when the alternative to sure loss is a substantial chance for losing an even larger amount." Meaning, some people take risks if there is potential to lose even more.

Then p3 starts by saying "Such observations" referring to the second part of p2 "are quite salient" meaning quite obvious to international conflict scholars.

And there you go, that's where (B) is supported. P2, is all about managing personal assets under two different risk frameworks. The second risk framework of personal asset management applies to some governments. Some governments are making decisions to go to war over islands or resources that they subjectively see as their personal assets.

Yeah as @Catpop and others said below, don't be afraid to take a day or two off a week or turn your brain off from the LSAT like it doesn't exist. After your second day your brain sort of kicks in and naturally reminds you that you have something purposeful and important to do. You'll come back sharper, more rested, and motivated.

But NEVER blend your rest with your study. If you are "resting" while studying you'll have neither rest nor will you properly study.

My personal principle when it comes to "aiming" for a test date is to think of how ready will I be by the time LSAC's registration deadline hits for that test date. The August registration deadline is in June. So for example, I ask myself, how ready will I be in June? NOT how ready will I be in August. If I'm aiming for a 165 on the August LSAT, but by June I'm still in the low 150s, I realistically don't think I'm ready for that August exam. However, if by June I'm averaging in the 170s, then I will probably be ok to register for the August exam. So instead of aiming to be better for the LSAT exam, try to be overdeliver by the time registration hits. This way, you avoid cancelling, paying that ridiculous fee, or worse, taking an exam you were not ready for.

I’m a father in my 30s and based on my own stats I know I’m not ready for a June exam. I also feel like I am running out of time, but as most people our age or older have said, age is just a number in this situation.

Now, assuming that your analytics are accurate, you are not ready for an LSAT exam either. I think when it comes to drilling you have only just started.

I know you don’t want to hear this, but I’ll be real with you. No fluff. You should aim for January and potentially get a tutor. I would also blind review every dang question twice and do more untimed questions followed by timed sections in about a month or two depending on how well you are grasping the untimed questions.

If you are not ready by the end of October for a January exam (October is right around the corner but far enough away to make real progress), then I would aim for the next cycle and apply early and get it over with.

@TCL I struggle with this too. It takes a conscious effort to translate lsat language. I've been told to practice writing my own translations, especially in blind review, and to slow down and translate during untimed drills. Eventually it becomes automatic.