Anecdotally, if I am already tired then I tend to get sleepy after I drink caffeine.

Hi Briana,

Without more detail I can't speak to your specific situation, but here are some things that helped me. Generally speaking the strategy is first to identify unstated assumptions in the argument presented in the stimulus. Then, if the task is to weaken the argument, the correct answer choice will deny one of those assumptions. If the task is to strengthen the argument, the correct answer choice will grant one of those assumptions.

How do you practice? I recommend writing up an analysis of the argument in the stimulus, writing out the assumptions in the argument that you identify, writing out possible ways to strengthen/weaken the argument based on those assumptions, writing out an analysis of each answer choice, and then viewing the solution.

Kind of unrelated, but when starting out it can take a while to get comfortable with the idea that we are to assume the answer choices are true within the world of the question stimulus, no matter how outlandish or unreasonable they may seem in real life. All that matters is their logical consequences. Here's a dumb, but hopefully illustrative example:

Beatrice: Bertrand says that two times three is seven. However, two times three is not seven.

Which of the following if true, most supports Beatrice's argument?

(A) Yoda is pink. (B) Zero plus zero is zero (C) Shellfish are selfish (D) Two times three is 52,301

The answer is (D). It's an absurd statement in real life, but it's the only answer choice that supports Bertrand's argument if we pretend it's true in the world of the stimulus.

Wow, I just watched the video, and I had also missed that "not significantly less expensive" also includes the possibility that they are equal in price, and the possibility that the narrow boards are more expensive or even significantly more expensive. Good stuff.

(Xpost from CC problem set) I had a hard time with this, even after blind review. It didn’t hit me that one would need to purchase more narrow boards than wide boards to cover a given area, so if the boards are comparable in price, it would be more expensive to use narrow boards, especially over a large house. I kept thinking “so if narrow boards are around the same price as wide boards, and actually a bit cheaper, then they aren’t being used as a wealth-status symbol, so this actually weakens the argument.”

I guess the lesson is to always keep in mind whether a comparison is between unit rates or between totals and to consider the significance of the comparison in the context.

Or rather, such a person is not necessarily within the scope of the sociologist's argument, and so cannot serve as a counterexample.

I initially chose A after incorrectly reasoning that it provided a counterexample to the sociologist's claim. I reasoned as follows:

1) The scope of the sociologist's argument is all people who want to maximize their happiness.

2) A tells us that there exists at least one person who owns a pet and is happier than most people who do not own a pet.

3) Since such a person is already happier than most people without a pet, such a person should not consider not owning the pet.

4) Therefore, such a person is a counterexample to the sociologist's claim.

My error, I think, was that without more information, a person described by A is not actually a counterexample to the sociologist's claim because we are never told such a person wants to maximize their happiness. Without this info, such a person is outside the scope of the sociologist's claim, and so cannot serve as counterexample .

Yes, it means that amongst all work-related injury claims where an injury did in fact occur, most were filed on the same day that the injury occurred.

It's working for me now. Thanks!

I can't see the questions or the answers, and can't access the "notes" function in the problem sets in accompany the core curriculum.

Added: I experience this in Safari and in Firefox.

Thank you 7sage, I am grateful for the work you do.

See LSATSurvivor's reply to PhilipToronto below.