@johannadesjardins146 thats what IM saying. How many international agreements are made and never followed?

because of how stupidly hard the previous questions are, ive been really second guessing my answers for all of these. I thought i had this passage down really well but the questions are insanely weird

Saying Pliny and Aeschylus are from the same time is like saying Barak Obama and Shakespeare are from the same time.

@SheepLiterature Im not an expert on these, but doesnt Medea end up killing Jason for being unfaithful?

wtf does "the largest privately owned" even qualify here. Is Vidmar's collection the largest privately owned collection in the world? Or is it that of Vidmars collections, the one being auctioned is the largest of hers that is privately owned, (if thats even possible)? The question stim and answers are absurdly worded.

brain died and resurrected halfway through. New brain was not smart enough to recognize B as wrong x-x

J.Y. makes the part to whole error in his logical reasoning here with shallow dive. If you have a 75-80% confidence rate of correctly eliminating each answer choice, then that does not all add up to having a pretty good chance at getting the answer right.

@MichaelCrout When they say "organic factor" they are mainly referring to physical factors. Culture can be seen more as an intangible social influence, not organic in a biological kind of way.

All i understood about this question was that it was reasoning by analogy and ruled out every other question from that. I still have no idea really what the argument is trying to say.

Nothing ever obtains...

@Aliza GGG maybe better to have some areas that refer back to the foundation section, since all of those groundwork items are laid down in detail there.

I saw D was the first one discussed in the video and was sad since I was sure it was A and then was pleasantly surprised to have my reasoning validated :D

ive been consistently getting these right but only with mapping out the question after a really long time. Every question ive done on this module has been a minute or 2 over the target when it does not feel like I could have understood it faster.

At the same time on PT's its like sufficient assumption questions are frequently ones that I have trouble with even without this framework, so it just feels like this kind of question in general is harder than the rest. I pretty much always end up going over time because of them.

@futurelawyerlol I'm doing the exact same thing and its like a paradigm shift in what has otherwise been a particularly brutal section. If it works it works!

@Ramen123 a blunder as classic as challenging a sicilian when death is on the line

So shrimp are xenophobic and will only breed with their cousin #habsshrimp

@Dbarsemian Same. I think that sometimes its like their explanation for not delving deeper into modified modifiers, but rather for simplicities sake. Whichever feels more intuitive to you, and thus increases your speed of understanding the sentence, matters more than it being technically an object or modifier.

For example, in question 4, i wrote "the formation triggered winds" with winds being the object.

This made sense to me, but the answer key lists it as a modifier

Now that I'm typing it out, i can see winds not being a part of the predicate as technically the formation didnt trigger winds, but winds did trigger the formation.

This probably looks like a bunch of rambling but I believe that there reasoning is essentially that the object must be the focus of the action triggered by the subject. Thus, winds is not the object since it was not the focus of the action "triggered."

@ClaireLacza Yep i had the same problem :(

I feel like it could be assumed here that Walt hasnt done anything illegal to obtain a pass, (barring the potentiall illegality of animal cruelty), like stealing a pass. The argument also does not stipulate that the passes must be linked to a membership or named card, in which case Walt could potentially have stolen a card that is not tied to personal identity.

From the module where they asked to rank the strength of the arguments, the assumption that aggressiveness and potential to cause injuries were reasons not to keep a pet struck me as inherently weak. They use the example of guard dogs, but in many cases people actually even use TIGERS for those very reasons to keep as pets. It really makes the entire argument fall apart.

@Simon Navarrete it makes sense that for something like the LSAT, the definition of argument has to be more restrictive than the broad definition used in your logic class. Classes on rhetoric and logic have for centuries taught the broader definition, but this is in large part a huge criticism that some of the first scientists had against logical reasoning, because it often lead to conclusions which were not observably true.

I guess the LSAT structure is more based in observable truth

@hsuyt25 I watched the video, realized the article was mostly repeat, but went through the article to help write my notes. There is a few phrasing differences between the video and article