I would unregister from the June LSAT and possibly aim for October or November. June should be your self-reflecting month in order to regroup and find out where you are. Then in June register for the fall exams.

I would also not do any PTs every two weeks simply just to get used to timing. I don’t mean don’t ever do PTs. But hold off on PTs for at least another month until you get your translations and answer anticipations down. This is because timing comes naturally from intuition. Working on timing is counter productive.

instead, focus on translations and memory retention. Try to retain the argument structure and its meaning in your own words, further anticipating the assumption or flaw, then wording the answer in your mind without seeing the answers. This alone will boost your time and you don’t need a PT to do it.

I would focus on doing 5-10 questions a day drilling these habits over and over. Review each question. Practice your own rewording. All you need is a good uninterrupted 2 hours.

Dad to a 13 month old boy. Studying and daddy day care is surprisingly very rewarding. Keep on brother!

@b-machine I hope I'm not too late to change your mind, but this is a very important question. It's a gift, actually. So I hope you can change your attitude about this question, or else you'll be in for further disappointment.

For one, try to see how important it is to know that MSS questions can make assumptions, further, even Necessary Assumptions. Yup, when an MSS makes a conclusion, they are making a Necessary Assumption, and almost every time the answer is that assumption. The difference between (A) and (D) is that (A) is simply not true. It's not supported and it's not necessary.

Here, the author's conclusion is contradicting other people's argument. It's pretty cookie cutter. So the inference/necessary assumption is the correct answer: "replacing fatty food with carbs is PROBABLY not a good idea." This is basically the inference that the author is making. It's an inference and a necessary assumption (NA's are MBTs).

But then why is the correct answer saying that one "SHOULD" limit their intake? Because the premises are strong enough to support a suggestion. Notice that the premises say "WHEN" this and "WHEN" that. These are SUFFICIENT indicators. That means you are guaranteed by the premises to gain fat.

I personally was making the mistake that the premises were probable and that they "COULD" make you fatter if you have too much insulin or if you're not burning extra calories. But that's not the case. The premises don't soften the conditionals. Therefore, the SHOULD in the correct answer is supported.

When you consider the structures: First, that MSS sometimes have MCs, next that this MSS is countering the other people's claim, this should trigger your assumption radar. "I'm probably being asked what is an assumption that must be true here." Then as you go into the premises, you should notice the strength of the premises and how they are supporting your must be true assumption.

This process happens over and over and over on the LSAT. I suggest you get a handle on this now. It's a gift son.

@FelipeCaceres-Cambero You should see 123.4.5. Crazy!

@AmyWong This is originally how I thought about it. But this reasoning leads you to answer choice (C) because the coach would generalize/justify one behavior based on how professional athletes behave. This would be the right reasoning and the right answer for that reasoning. This wouldn't necessarily be an equivocation.

But all the forums and reviews say that the equivocation in this argument is that Coach thinks that the critics are calling his players amateurs in skill, not behavior. While the critics are calling out the players behavior, not their skill.

@Jsonf Thanks for the clear explanation. Helped me wrap my mind around the argument better.

@andreabear Yeah, no problem. Hope I didn't confuse you even more. In my mind my explanation made sense at the time. But could have been more clear.

@andreabear "the only" is a sufficient indicator. But the answer has "balance of public opinion against the work" as sufficient for removal. That's not accurate. Neither M nor H talk about "a balance" as being sufficient for either removal or not removal. M's sufficient is artistic merit guarantees that the art is not removed. H doesn't take issue with artistic merit. He says, "yeah, people's opinion has no baring on the art's merit." But it should still be removed because public benefit is sufficient for removal.

I hesitated with (E) because "central" seemed like a stretch. But I guess we are to reasonably assume that by "central" the LSAT means sufficient.

S makes the argument that Because HA's habitually exaggerate, all HA's should be banned. I translated this relationship simply as EX --> B. This is also the assumption, that Exaggeration is enough to always guarantee a complete ban. The loop: well, what if Exaggeration is NOT enough to always guarantee a complete ban. What if we have perhaps a regulatory agency that would mitigate exaggerations. This would allow Exaggerations, but not complete ban. (L: EX + /B)

Of course, this is what G says. G counters S's assumption that exaggeration always leads to a complete ban by introducing a regulatory agency that G assumes will be sufficient at making HAs responsible and legit HAs. ( EX --> RA --> R+L --> /B).

A good counter to G's assumption would be to negate the assumption that a Regulation Board would make HA's Responsible and Legit. (RA + /R+/L).

Of course, this is the what (D) says. ALL HAs are NOT Responsible. In other words, you can have your Regulation Agency that will still never give you responsible and legit HAs. (RA + /R+/L)