@GabrielLerma You're gonna do great! Just try not to rush yourself on the Foundationals and the Practice. Whatever you build as instinctual muscle memory will be stronger if you take your time to really understand and build it. If you're at the drill/practice test section, why not try something like a timed and a not timed test and see what the difference is. You might know more than you think!

Is it just me or are the Lawgic written out examples just completely missing from this article?

@ogall I think for LR the assumption is always to focus on validity, but for RC you'll focus more on truth (since it is testing your ability to surmise the truth from the passage)

I think the final list of conditions helped me really nail down why something that is necessary is not sufficient. Necessary is if A, then B guaranteed. Flipping it around (If membership in mammal-set), made me understand why it wouldn't be sufficient.

@YakovMahgerefteh I don't think C is an example of something being equivalent. The Equivalent Statement to E is "One's appearance and behavior are noticed by others far less than people tend to believe". There is no information on what the observers believe their level of observation is, so we do not know if they are less observant, more observant, or about the same level of observant.

I'm really struggling with when information should be included in the A v B vs when it should be included in the quality or characteristic being compared. Why was it Winter Months v The Months Before the Winter Months but not One Nation vs Any Other Nation? I'm really trying hard to get it, but I haven't landed on why or how I can tell yet.

@Sunnieqw22 This is what I put, I don't know if it's right or not but I think since this is an inferred comparison it's okay if what you pull isn't precisely what the example pulls

I didn't really find this concept to be that abstract?

That is an all-powerful word that bends sentences to its will.

@GabrielLerma At this stage in the process I think that we're all a little bit slow because we're manually applying everything that we've just learned. Over time we'll be able to do it instinctively just by doing that manual application and your time will eventually go down, I think. I wouldn't worry about it too much right now.

@KyleYin I think that's exactly what it is doing! It is giving additional information about the noun (magpies) but the sentence structure also meant that it is referring back to the clause before it. Here, the entire clause attached to which is modifying "magpies", but only the word which is a referential that means "magpies" it is the vehicle through which the rest of the clause gets to modify!

I'm a little shaky on "is wrong" being a referential. It would still exist in a sentence with the referent "One prominent biologist is wrong about xyz.

The only thing I can latch on to referentials being meaningless without their referent. It is true that "He is wrong" would not mean anything without the statement about what he is wrong about, is that why it counts?

@Shrimpi I'm not 100% sure but a study concluding can happen with no additional information. It would just mean it ended, though, so not enough context. Declared maybe doesn't work the same way?

@SavanahHoffstein Is it because "the cat likes" isn't a sentence but "antibiotics fail" is?

I'm a little confused why the last one was "the cat likes to drink milk" but this kernel for Q1 wasn't "antibiotics fail to kill the bacteria"

I was really nervous when I put down "fiction" as the subject instead of science-fiction. I think there are a lot of modified subjects that we view as it's own thing. To me science fiction and fiction are two entirely different things, because fiction has an invisible modifier (general) in my head that doesn't make me view them as of the same category. I will have to look out for that in the future!

@KhushyMandania The attempts to sabotage would still be a subset of attempts.

I've never been so aware of my own intuitive knowledge of English than I was when I got to the "what about be, or have" they're not actions so much as states-of-being but I know they're verbs inherently.

@LibertyBeavers The word clearly is definitely a throw off, as that can be an indicator word, but as a conclusion it has no support structure. If you were to ask "Why are dismissed employees harmed and senses of security rattled? outside of that sentence (whereas we assume dismissal is harmful).

"Because attempts at increasing productivity decrease the number of employees" doesn't work, it doesn't get a reason, support the harm statement, and the conclusion in this case wouldn't be related to productivity either. It just concurs with there being less employees.

With no support, it can't be a conclusion.

@WilRothman I think arguments like this are where the original definitions of premise and conclusion being taken extremely literally. It may not sound like it's trying to be persuasive, but it is still a "statement that is supported by another statement" which is all a conclusion is in the context of an LSAT question.

You can rewrite it as "I've decided to go ahead with the operation because my current medical condition may leave me no other alternative" and it works, and maybe even sounds a little bit more of an argument!

@correaminerva09 However, reading it back over again, I'm not sure it is a subconclusion because there are no premises that would be backing that claim up, we only know what the premises are from question four!

@correaminerva09 Subconclusions are also called major premises, so because it is fulfilling the role of "premise" in it's relationship to the final conclusion they've labeled it as such. if I'm remembering correctly. The other skill builders have also labeled subconclusions as premises.

Question 2 got me!! It seemed to me like there was some sort of support structure but I guess it was facts and claims and not premise and conclusion.

I feel like these drills are using weak arguments to try and trip us up from identifying the weak support structure. 5/5 still but there was a moment of confusion in there because the argument just seemed wrong!

I always get so excited when I get these right haha!! 5/5!!