Yeah I just took the 1:15 and used it elseswhere lol this is a terribly worded q

another day another vagueness complaint to the test writers

weed out question. return to it near the end of the timer

wow its rare that a correct answer is 'presupposes the truth'

im shocked that i only got this one wrong. the whole passage + questions were so airy

when you intuit the right answer but misread the negations

potential to vs actually having experience. the former does not require actually experiencing, just the capacity. tricky tricky

@SergioC aka "save this for the last 2 minutes" type question

this is what they call a "weed out question." No mercy!

i dont like the use of the word never in A

@babachanianaren905 lsat is made by people. there are mistakes somewhere

couldve said theyre "lawgically equivalent" too har har

main conclusion also supports nothing else.

some premises are 'sub-conclusions' in that they are supported by other premises, and at the same time support the main conclusion (perhaps other sub-premises)

if its hard to determine the structure of the argument, you can narrow things down by considering:

• the main conclusion wont support anything else. at the same time, it must have at least 1 premise

• a premise will be supporting something else. and thus, it won't just be background info

• if there is no supporting going on, you have merely a list of facts in your passage

my brain already jumps to making analogies and examples. hope i can add 'pattern recongition' to my mental toolkit. Lord knows how stressful test day is. cheers

yeah no the word misguided seems a bit much. i gathered from what the passage said that they couldve had a difference of opinion/direction

what

another day another weird kind of logic the lsat expects me to already understand

not enough nouns in this paragraph. or verbs

oh thank God for POE

nice to hear other people find this passage a headache XD

where/how did the author of the passage posit that the unions are gaining strength?

i thought it was distorting for the speaker to say Arnot's argument is dubious like how he explained

how is it implied that EditorY says "composition is sufficient"? I dont get how thats a (or the) reasonable thing to interpret from whats written. no guarantee that thats the extent of his uh full analysis of the photo right?

where is it stated that we need both s bacilli and the host being phys run down