This one was a matter of highlighting the hypothesis and staying focused on the fact that it was saying that plants with high photosynthesis rates could lose their edge. so you had to find an example where plants with high photo rates still thrived in high co2

@elbicho thank you!!!!

i thought that she knew she would hurt his feelings bc the problem is being described from her POV? i thought it was pretty safe to think that she knows that she will hurt his feelings and therefore equate that to believing Daniel would prefer kindness. i don't appreciate how little time JY spent on A and B. I wish he wouldn't brush away certain answers just bc it seems obvious to him. It's not obvious to some of us :/

I am going through something similar I wonder if OP ended up resolving their issues @ker142510

Hey! I’m down for online but what are you scoring ? And when are you taking it ? I’m trying to make the final jump from 165 to 170 right now before the June exam

hi- also in Chicago let me know if there is a discord chat!

I think your way is fine. I see no flaws. I just think its a time guzzler to use all those letters but I do the same thing lol im trying to work on simplifying

waaaait this is actually so helpful. Thank you! do you actually write down the sentences though? I feel like I have to at least do an abbreviated version to keep track of what each number would mean

I didn't know how to map it simply I always confuse myself more when I do that lol I wish it worked for me. I think it's a sign I need to review foundational lawgic and classic conditional flaws more. I get these right but I take forever breaking down the stim.

did you use any other resources to review lawgic or just foundational? what has been helping w that?

I feel like you just gotta practice the question type a loooot and then when it comes to the actual test, dont doubt, just act and keep it pushing bc these questions are time drainers anyway. At least that's my mindset and its been working for me so far.

yes that's what he said in the beginning I believe. He said that this stim can be analyze through both frameworks.

you mapped answer choice B wrong.

its tastes good-> right amount of flour

because the sentence states that a cake MUST (necessary indicator) contain the right amount of flour in order to taste good.

from there you would map the conditional premise as A-> B and the conclusion is Not A-> Not B which matches the stimulus

that's probably the fastest way to do it if you have a strong handle on the info. Personally, I still use stimulus specific labels bc I forget what A,B,C means easily once I get to the answer choices. For some reason, even though its simpler, the A,B,C format is more overwhelming for me.

I labeled the Discount Phone line as the Domain

then I did:

calls 9-5 -> 15 cents

calls not 9-5-> 10 cents

Therefore,

if its not 10 cents-> its 15 cents

and that's how I got the right answer. I looked first for the conclusions to match up and that narrowed it down pretty quickly from there.

hope this helps.

I would have struggled so much w this one but I just read the LSAT Dragon chapter on False Assumption flaws and when I read the question stem, I knew right away I had to do POE on the ACs and pick the one that if true, would strengthen the arg. def recommend that book ya'll its been a gaaameee changer. 7sage helps me re- enforce concepts and practice but LSAT dragon has game changing tips and explanations

this section is such a rollercoaster lol

I knew what the flaw was but I got lost in the ACs :(

when I see necessary/sufficient flaws, I'm gonna try to keep an eye out for ACs that mention other causal factors.

I would say yeah but I understand how that can get confusing.

I think it might be easier to think about it in terms of what is sufficient for the airport to be built and what is or isn't necessary.

If they get majority favor, it is sufficient for the airport to be built but its not absolutely necessary.

the conclusion is saying not getting majority favor is sufficient for the airport to not be built but that is simply not true from the premises we have.

All we have is : majority favor - built and not built then not maj favor

I hope this helps.

the more I get right, the more scared I get :/

if anyone is struggling with piecemeal analysis and breaking down complex AC's, I REALLY recommend LR Perfection by LSAT Dragon. He breaks down piecemeal analysis into way more detail and gives better tips. it's changed the game for me

I have a month to get flaw question types on lock oof

hey, I noticed your username says Chicago? Do you know any Chicago area zoom or in person study groups by any chance?

I know this comment is 2 yrs old but just in case it helps anyone else: The LSAT Dragon LR perfection book does exactly this and has been helping me level up after going through CC! highly recommend it!

I keep hearing about the LR perfecting and RC perfection books from LSAT dragon! I am def going to check them out