I started out using the wrong answer journal on 7sage but have been using a self-made excel spreadsheet more recently and prefer that since I can format it in a way that's easier for me to navigate.

I eliminated E for that same reason. However, we shouldn't have done that. There is a difference in what the stimulus says ("Most people who are not a classical pianists, don't recognize Clara Schumann," /CP -m-> /RCS), and what answer choice E says ("Most people who recognize Clara Schumann, are not classical pianists," RCS -m-> /CP). They're not the same reasoning. The stimulus is showing it's flawed reasoning and E is pointing that out. It's annoying but the difference is the actual logical flaw the argument commits.

Hopefully this helped!

Hahah dangit I did not finishing reading B and got trapped. Was getting too confident with the easier AP questions but caught it in BR

I’ve had those days too, you’re not alone! One thing that has really helped me with NA questions is to repeat everything in my own words. This ensures that I know exactly what we’re talking about. Then I identify the conclusion and ask “What do we need for this to be true?” Not necessarily to strengthen, or explain – but without, the conclusion would be impossible (find this using the negation test). When we first started this section, it took me a while to do all this but my time and accuracy have been improving because I have a good foundation to work with. We got this! Remember, if you finished the section, you can't be at square one. You got the in-unit q's down so build off of that. It takes time! Keep practicing and WAJing.

I've had those days too, you're not alone! One thing that has really helped me with NA questions is to repeat everything in my own words. This ensures that I know exactly what we're talking about. Then I identify the conclusion and ask "What do we need for this to be true?" Not necessarily to strengthen, or explain - but without, the conclusion would be impossible (find this using the negation test). When we first started this section, it took me a while to do all this but my time and accuracy have been improving because I have a good foundation to work with. We got this! Keep practicing and WAJing.

One thing that also helped me rule out B was the stimulus! We're told that "if the cost of waste disposal is left out of the comparison," biological and conventional tanning methods cost about the same. In other words, the difference in cost is going to be found within the costs of waste disposal, not anywhere else. B is trying to bait us into denying something explicitly stated in the stimulus. We don't need to be concerned about the costs of the chemicals/catalysts (we've been told already that they're pretty much the same) - so this makes B irrelevant.

Hope this helps!

Me too! haha dangit, we'll get it next time

Nothing humbles me more than when I do this haha.

Remember BR is just a tool for you - there is no BR on the actual test. During periods where I "overuse" BR and change correct answers to incorrect ones, I take note of this! For me, that usually means that I need to trust my first choice and not overthink after I've made a decision. I've found that during these periods, I'll get ahead of myself adding extra info or get distracted from what the conclusion is actually asking etc. Obviously there is a balance with this, but I'll usually stop using BR during these times and instead use the "question note" box. I'll write out why I thinkg answer choice X is correct (maybe why I didn't choose option Y if I was stuck between 2 options) - then view results. If i get it right, it affirms that i need to trust my gut and not second guess. If i don't get it right, it's helpful to see what my thought process was, and where I went wrong. From there, I can diagnose my mistake and have more knowledge afterwards.

I totally relate! It's the worst haha. This has helped me so hopefully it helps you too!

Hi! I'd say it can be both! (anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). "Building the bridge" for these question types is seeing what the premises are saying, looking at the conclusion, and then adding or stating anything we need to make that jump (aka make the argument "follow logically/be properly drawn" etc.) Sometimes this is adding "extra info" (I like to think of this more as showing a relationship between something in the premises with something in the conclusion), and sometimes this is stating information in the stimulus as true to strengthen the conclusion's stance.

Probably sounds confusing! But these are honestly my most difficult question types and I've been seeing progress recently with this approach. One thing that has really helped me (I'm a visual learner) is to draw it all out like J.Y. does. Seems simple but seeing the P->C helps me recognize correct answers almost every time. Hope this helps!

I've been doing this too! It's frustrating haha. Remember not to be too hard on yourself! You recognized the right answer! I've been really utilizing the wrong answer journal to see what about the wrong answer was attractive and why it made me switch. For me, I'd change during BR because I was overthinking and adding unnecessary assumptions when I had already found the right answer. We're both working on the same thing, we got this!

Keep practicing! Like improving a mile time, becoming quicker with LSAT questions takes consistent drilling, review and then more practice. A few tricks that help me: 1. reference the question type before going to the stimulus - this will help you know what to look for specifically while reading. 2. make sure you understand the stimulus before going to the answer choices - it only wastes more time blowing through it, only to have to go back several times to reread. After each sentence, or phrase even, make sure you can answer "what is this saying" in your terms. 3. cross out answers that are obviously wrong (extreme language, doesn't have anything to do with the stimulus or question type etc.). 4. Finally, just keep drilling! Use the BR after each question so you know what you typically do right/wrong and keep track of that with your wrong answer journal. The LSAT is a marathon, so consistency is key and results come along the way. Hope this helps!

I definitely can fall into this tricky habit at times! One thing that helps a TON, is utilizing the wrong answer journal after each question. Really look at what about the wrong answer attracted/tricked you into switching to it. Then understand why that's wrong (video explanation helps). Finally, compare the right answer choice with the tricky one and see what differences they have and make note of it for future reference! I'll go back and review these and truly feel like this process helps retain information about past mistakes so as not to repeat them. Hope this helps!

The "almost all" refers to the "almost half" (of the city) who believe he is guilty of the scandals. Almost all (of roughly less than 50% who think he's guilty) has not liked him even before the accusations came out. This explains why his public standing didn't go down as would be expected. Essentially they were polling people who already didn't like him/weren't impressed with him.

Hope this helps!

One thing that makes "unless" easier is to immediately translate it to "if not". So unless-> if not. "If" means whatever is after will be on the sufficient (left) side of the arrow; and "not" means whatever "if" is, it has to be negative.

Ex: He won't drive unless it's not raining.

"...unless it's not raining" -> if not (not raining) = it's raining

If it's raining, then he won't drive.

Hopefully this helps!

What helped me is to remember to not miss the correct answer looking for an ideal answer. The perfect (ideal answer) would have expressed that Jenkins wasn't concerned about the researchers' health. However, he explicitly says what he does prioritize: research money, adequate research etc. I took his omission about the health of the crew as he wasn't concerned. That might be an assumption, but it helepd me find the right answer. Hope that helps!

Give yourself time! If you've following the course as suggested on the website, we really just started answering the questions within a time frame. Speed will come as you do more and practice recognizing the prompts and answers more quickly. One thing that helped me is to create my own drill sets for questions we've learned so far, set them to the easiest level and do drills with 5 questions at a time. Review after each set and make sure you know why the right answer is correct, but also why the wrong answers are incorrect. This skill will help you recognize flaws and tricks the LSAT does -> which will improve your speed and score. After you are consistently only missing 1 question per round, boost the difficult of the questions and repeat. Hope this helps!

That's a good point, but understanding the analogy they're making here will help clarify. The analogy was between the potential danger of swimming pools and solutions to protecting kids. 1). put a fence around it, good choice. 2). teach the kids how to swim, even better choice. "advertised on television" is just extra information about the real issue: soft drinks and candy. Just like how you can have a pool at a rec center, a private or kiddie pool etc., the way the danger (the pool) is presented doesn't change the fact that the pool, in any form, is the true issue. So, candy and soft drinks, whether from the grocery store, a friend's house, home pantry etc., is less relevant than finding solutions to teaching kids how to "swim" or "make nutritional choices." Hope this helped!

It helped me to think literally about what an exception to a rule is. It means the rule doesn't apply.

If there's a rule that no 5 year old can have an ice cream from the ice cream truck, and then we're given a scenario about kids eating ice cream from that same ice cream truck, we would need to see if they fall within that rule. So we ask ourselves about the rule: are the kids 5 years old? If one child is 5 years old, they fall into the rule (the rule that no 5 year old can have ice cream from the truck - not the exception, must follow the rule = no ice cream, sad). However, if one kid were 6 years old - 6 was not specified in the rule and therefore could be an exception. That doesn't automatically mean the kid gets an ice cream, but he could if he wanted to because he's not in the rule, meaning he's an exception to the rule of 5 year olds not being allowed ice cream from the truck.

Hope this helps!

#help

For question 9 does anyone understand why this couldn't be a valid conditional to draw from the prompt?

surrounding C and hunting is permitted-> /deer size increased

deer size increased-> /surrounding country or /hunting is permitted

I didn't read it as a conditional between the deer size increasing vs not. Rather, I read it as location vs if the deer size is increasing. Thanks!

What helps me is to translate it into simpler terms. For example:

A society begins to decline only when its golden retrievers become corrupt. If any member of canine family is corrupted, revolution will follow.

Golden retrievers are obviously a member of the canine family so they would be included and the argument would flow as we saw above. The "canine family" also included other breeds of dogs, wolves, coyotes etc., but regardless of who else it could include, golden retrievers are a part of that superset. The prompt said "if any member of the society's elite," naturally that could include the president, maybe members of congress, top surgeons etc. and certainly politicians.

Hope that helps!

What helps me is to translate it into simpler terms. For example:

A society begins to decline only when its golden retrievers become corrupt. If any member of canine family is corrupted, revolution will follow.

Golden retrievers are obviously a member of the canine family so they would be included and the argument would flow as we saw above. The "canine family" also included other breeds of dogs, wolves, coyotes etc., but regardless of who else it could include, golden retrievers are a part of that superset. The prompt said "if any member of the society's elite," naturally that could include the president, maybe members of congress, top surgeons etc. and certainly politicians.

Hope that helps!

Remember the difference between sufficient vs. necessary indicators.

Sufficient

If more than 5 minutes - > marked as late. This is plain and simple = more than 5 minutes, then you're automatically marked as late.

Necessary

if you're late -> you arrived 5+ minutes after the bell. That means his late arrival is a necessary condition for his citation. It does not guarantee that he will be cited.

Think of it as "you could be cited as late, but it's not guaranteed" (because it's on the sufficient side, not the necessary side)

These paragraphs above helped me understand:

It only laid out a necessary condition for "cited as late." Not a sufficient condition. In other words, there's a difference between:

Students are cited as "late" only if they arrive more than five minutes past the last ring of the homeroom bell.

Students are cited as "late" if they arrive more than five minutes past the last ring of the homeroom bell.

Had the rule been an "if" rule, then Kumar's arrival 17 minutes after the last ring of the bell would have been sufficient for his late citation. But the rule was an "only if" rule.

Hope that helped!