Grammar parsing is king.

ngmi

Doesn't "No small animal can move more rapidly than large animals can," imply "Either large animals move more rapidly than small animals OR they (referencing large and small animals) move equally rapidly." If no small animal can move more rapidly than large animals can, then it must be the case that "Either large animals move more rapidly than small animals OR they (referencing large and small animals) move equally rapidly." Am I getting off track here?

😍😍😍

GOTTEN EVERY SINGLE QUESTION THIS SECTION WRONG IM GOING TO SLEEP

this entire section genuinely took away all my hope

No three "some" -> Move on. Wise words.

5/5 lets gooooo (I wish I felt like this when actually taking the LSAT)

ball

3/3 & only 10 seconds over in total for all three questions!

There is no shot this was a 5-Difficulty question. I'm usually slamming my head on my desk when reading those, but this was light.

I thought the Disney argument was the strongest because if the premises given were true, the conclusion MUST be true as well. I thought the tiger argument was the 2nd strongest because the premise SUPPORTS the conclusion, but doesn't guarantee it like the Disney argument. I chose the Mr. Fat Cat argument as the weakest because even if the premises were all true, there could still be doubt about the trueness of the conclusion.

much better explanation than the actual explanation on review.

maybe im just not cut out for this shit man

This drill being focused on "causal language," yet having no section explaining this language is definitely odd.

kinda fishy, nice

i'm so confident on my choices and they're just wrong bruh