#help Parallel argument attempt here. Does this seem to work?

Golf is a relaxing activity and relaxing activities require tranquility. Walking is a way to obtain tranquility. Therefore, walking was likely designed to help golf be relaxing!

Embarrassed that I got pulled away from the correct AC because I focused on the statement that other magazines had confirmed the correlation and I was looking at that as the flaw and tried to make an AC fit this. Horrible mistake on an easy question.

@aaronkeegan92975 Thanks for the reply! Yes, I have completed fool proofing! I use to suck horribly before that haha! I think its the subtleties that are killing me. I'm trying to trust my instinct and look for those more constraining AC's that kick the restraining rules.

@aaronkeegan92975 @kmeter399 @aaronkeegan92975 Thanks for the responses! I had been wondering if it was a good habit to write it out, especially now with the electronic version. I think I will try to give that a go. I am much more of a visual person so this may help a lot! I still struggle with getting a second pass at this point. I'm a slow reader and I'm working on my skipping strategy and allocating my time properly. But I will try to write it out! Thanks y'all!!!

#help Could someone help clarify this up for me. I chose C on both timed and BR. I see where C is wrong; we don't know about the strictness of other builders.

My issue came with the initial definition of "refusal" and the "contemporary standard of refusal". I had no issues with time period issues. Rather, I felt like 2 different standards were presented. The first one at the beginning stated that the piles couldn't be driven any further and then we have the contemporary standard where they were driven 2 inches every 24 blows. That comes off as different to me.

How could he have met the standard of refusal mentioned at the beginning if the piles are still moving? That seems contradictory. The contemporary standard doesn't seem to match the refusal that was stated to be what ruled that time period for all buildings.

Maybe I'm off in left field. Just need some help haha.

#help What kind of flaw would this fall under? Irrelevant/contradictory information?

I typically go in order and skip when necessary, though I'm intrigued by doing the global questions last strategy. Might have to try this haha

Strange. I missed it both timed and BR. In BR I initially was going to pick A but since David did concede those points by Carla, I thought he couldn't have ignored it then. I therefore reached for B.

Hey!

Our job here is to weaken the conclusion, not go along with it. A is the opposite of what we want to do; we don't want to agree with the conclusion given but rather weaken it.

Like JY said, I think D opens the door for a 3rd factor to be at play. I don't think D is attacking the premise. If it were denying the correlation all together, then I think it would be attacking it. All the argument is doing is concluding a certain relationship from the correlation. By choosing D, we are suggesting that the relationship is different than the one stated (it actually goes the other way, and it only seems like pets cause less happiness due to there being some 3rd factor).

Hope this helps! Feel free to follow up with other questions!

Are we going to be able to choose the electronic version or is it randomly selected for the July date?

Hey!

From what I can gather here, if you are not seeing the conditional relationships well, then I would go back to the conditional logic lessons at the beginning of the CC. What is taught there is applied exactly the same way as in the game. I would also review the "or" and "not both" video in the in/out intro section. These are critical to understand, especially for the in/out grouping games.

LG will punish you if your foundationals are not there. If that means doing some games untimed to understand how the relationships truly work, then do it. It may help seeing how the writers implement these logical relationships in the actual games. Hope this helps! Good luck!

Thanks 7sage! My Amazon (and bank) account are forever grateful!

Hey! Sorry I posted this answer above (wrong box haha)

I think the answer to your question lies in this sentence:

“If the sliding doors are open…..this effect will be created if it doesn’t already exist and will intensify if it already does.”

This introduces the idea that even if the doors are closed, the effect can still exist. It even says that the effect will intensify if the effect already does exist.

Hope this helps!

Hey!

I think the answer to your question lies in this sentence:

"If the sliding doors are open.....this effect will be created if it doesn't already exist and will intensify if it already does."

This introduces the idea that even if the doors are closed, the effect can still exist. It even says that the effect will intensify if the effect already does exist.

Hope this helps!

I had to use POE here mostly. Z uses the word "pretty" instead of attractive so when looking at D there is a bit of a grammar challenge. I initially didn't trust it but all the other AC's just don't line up. I read Y and was able to eliminate enough of them that when I read Z, I could eliminate the others.

If you can do the 19-35, do it! It covers a wide ranging amount of games and will give you plenty of exposure. LG comes down to recognition and repetition. Fool proofing games you have done before is great, but seeing fresh games is also extremely important. There is a certain challenge having to put your skills together for a game you have never seen. Plus, the games change in minuet ways as you get to the more recent PT's so you want to be ready for those (mainly the re-emerging of the miscellaneous games). Good luck!

Hey! So A is not the contrapositive of E. You cannot contrapose "most" statements. E is wrong because it focuses on bills that have passed, not ones that haven't. For all we know, there could be many other requirements for a bill to pass; we have no idea. Our conclusion is focused on a bill not passing. This where A is correct. If we add A in there, that makes our conclusion that the bill won't pass even more likely and lines up very well with our other premise.

Hope this helps!

Hey!

I think you are looking too deep into this stimulus.

"Because the sample size is too small to make such a generalization."

Here they are just looking for us to see the overall pattern, not to seek out a flaw in the reasoning. Yes, 3 birds is probably too small of a sample but that is not what we are being asked to analyze here. The question stem is just asking us to pick a statement that is being illustrated above.

Hope this helps!

I put it on my desk. I will add though, as I believe it was mentioned in a separate post, with the new digital test coming soon, the screen will have a digital countdown clock on there which makes watches a moot point soon (unless your a June or for some a July taker).

I agree with much of what has been said. I graduated and was a waiter for a while, though I was forced to get a full-time position recently doing compliance work for the county. I've been on both sides of the study time. Full-time jobs suck a lot of your day. I'm still trying to adjust!

If you are just starting out in the CC, then part-time might be best. If you are like me who has been studying for a few years and has gone through the CC (and a few LSAT sittings) you probably can manage a full time position.

I agree with @katecarwin858 that the gain from full-time work only goes so far! A great LSAT score will take you much further than solid work experience! Good luck friend!

I didn't recognize that this was a conditional. Sort of treated it as a typical MBT question and picked A. E is absolutely correct.

Fell for A here; thinking that it was a corr/causation type of issue. However, I think A is way outside the scope, even for a weakening question. Argument is more concerned with percentages/probability than a Z factor.

D introduces a wrecking ball that messes with the percentages mentioned in the stimulus. If I am more likely to get into an accident in a large vehicle, it doesn't matter how safe it is compared to a small, I am introducing myself to being injured much more than the argument presumes.

I would respectfully disagree. C does nothing for our argument. What occurs before the study has no bearing once the study begins. The measurements between A and B are independent of each other.

Let's say Plant A has a production rate of 25/per month and B has a rate of 50/per month. After the study, A increases to 45/per month and B remains the same as mentioned in the stimulus. A is more productive & our conclusion holds. What if I changed A's starting point to 50 to match B's starting point? A increases to 70 after the study (same increase) and the conclusion is the same. Does the starting point change the strength of the conclusion? It simply doesn't. We are simply measuring overall increase for 2 independent plants when taking into account a certain variable (nutritious breakfast); if they were dependent on each other in some way, then you may have a case.

For what its worth, I got it wrong too (picked B; which is a similar trap as C is). As JY said, A solidifies that the variable being tested wasn't obtained outside the plant. All we are told is that breakfast was not provided to B like A was. Who says B workers didn't stop at Dunkin Donuts on the way? That would affect our conclusion's strength. If everyone at Plant B is getting a sausage bagel (we'll say it nutritious here lol) for breakfast, then our control group for our study is not a control group.

The LSAT writers will never have a correct AC and one that is "wrong but would be right if the right AC wasn't there". C simply doesn't strengthen our argument in this case. Hope this helps! Good luck!