it makes so much sense when he explains it. I realize that I don't really know what I'm reading especially when my brain is fried and LSAC knows this.

1:10 “the LSAT writers are totally fucking with us right now” LMAOO !!!!

are you supposed to attack the premise or the conclusion? #help

I got a 168 and got this question wrong FML

for some reason, i conflated " the coolest brown dwarfs'' with "Brown dwarfs when I read AC A and it didn't make sense to me because my reasoning against AC A was it cant be all brown dwarfs but both the passage and answers say coolest brown dwarfs

Doofenshmirtz Evil Inc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJeBHiDOTPE

You're Welcome

If you can afford a private tutor I highly recommend it. Paying is a great motivator lol and the feeling of needing to study and review will also increase

Who was your effective tutor ????????

If premise then conclusion

SAME! ok glad its not just me

LONG but I highly recommend Reading this !!!!!

My logic for Q13 is from the last paragraph. J.Y touches on this idea in his 2nd explanation. Line 43 states ''Ideally, these decisions should be informed by an assessment of the value of each document.'' AND THEN GOES ON TO SHOW EXMAPLES OF THESE VALUE JUDGEMENTS with reasons and examples as to why Homer has survived this long which is because people valued it and had popularity. Another example which is (ALMOST THE OPPOSITE) is Plato's work being lost for generations and (line 50) says ''ONLY!!!! BECAUSE RANDOM COPIES TURNED UP IN ARCHIVES''. It then goes on to say that ''Undoubtedly, many important works have not survived at all.

Because people valued specific types of works we have access to them today. If it weren't for the archives there could have been a chance where we would not know about Plato today but since there were people who valued it, we have access to these documents ( we are the future generation of the past). AC E states the value judgments of today will influence future generations. FISRT INFLUENCE is a broad term. it could be 1% influence. If it said that value judgments today BY Archivists is the MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR IN HOW FUTURE GENERATIONS view and judge the past then I would argue that is not supported BUT IT DOESN'T SAY THAT!!! Of course if data will be lost, which include IMPORTATNT WORKS OF HISTORY including Modern works and archivists have to decided which to keep, will influence perception in the future. Imaging if we did not know who Plato was.

so helpful

I legitimately understood this passage and still got -3 LMAO

I just went on a 10 minute tangent on if we can terraform mars and the moon. Beware of diverting your focus on more interesting topics lol!!!

this was rough lmao

@ Can I please get the checklist as well!

@ Thank you again !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lets just assume that on the extreme end of it, race can no longer be checked off/ put in an application strictly speaking on the form part not the personal statement/ diversity. Would that mean that, URM would be completely different and more based of personal experiences/ socioeconomic class? And if it's socioeconomic class, do you think there would be a requirement or spot to put economic status/ income? And if socioeconomic class would have a determining factor in acceptance. Or would it just be much more heavily reliant through diversity statements and personal statements? (I.E. Subjective). Because with Race its more of a concrete categorical based system (not perfect) which is also reviewed when applying for the Bar Exam/ Acquiring an Attorney's license. I understand this is just your opinion and pure speculation but it's still a thoughtful insight/ valuable opinion. Hopefully this makes sense.

My question shortened is assuming race is completely out of the application, do you think there would be a much heavier emphasis on personal statements and diversity statements (OBVIOUSLY EXLCUDING LSAT SCORES AND GPA), or do you think there would potentially be a place/box where socioeconomic class is put in ?

I appreciate you taking the time providing info and your opinion.

@ thank you for you thoughtful insight!

If schools do put more consideration towards economic status and upbringing, would this be brought up more in the personal statement part of the application (I.E. more subjective)? And not just checking a box (I.E. Race check box)

Ok so after writing this out its very long but please take the time to seriously read this and understand what Im trying to say it will help you! Once you read Loophole this will eventually become intuitive. If you have questions feel free to DM through 7Sage.

Ok so thinking of it this way cleared it up A LOT! Stimulus states (Paraphrased) if teenagers wake up earlier than 8am they're tired/ more accidents than after 8am. Granville (school) pushed start time to 8:30 and overall number of accidents involving teenagers lowered.

CONCLUSION Car accidents involving teenagers COULD (focus on the could) be reduced if the school day began later than 8am.

LOOPHOLE#1- What if car accidents AREN'T reduced if the school day began later than 8am.

ORRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!! (LOL)

LOOPHOLE#2- What if the overall lower car accidents are due to some other reason (NOT 8:30 am start time) (Here you make some shit up) Like safer roads or new laws regulating speed literally anything!

In a Strengthen and Necessary Assumption questions the correct answer choice (AC) destroys the LOOPHOLE you made and strengthens the CONCLUSION! SOOO a possible answer choice that strengthen the conclusion and destroys the LOOPHOLE I made would be

" The lowered car accidents involving teenagers ARE!!... due to a later school time (that later school time specifically being GRANVILLE.)"

Which is what AC E says it in a shitty way. It says car accidents involving teenagers DID LOWER! after they changed the time to 8:30. That's check mark #1. I believe if the AC stated that other areas outside of GRANVILLE stayed the same instead of rose, a lot more people would get this question correct. But saying it rose doesn't change anything in fact it goes the other direction which is what you want.

( IN LOOPHOLE PG # 280) States - ""Strengthen asks you to defend the argument against the weakness exposed by the LOOPHOLE. The correct answer is POWERFUL; IT CAN BRING IN POWERFUL NEW INFORMATION TO HELP THE CONCLUSION OUT"!!!

So saying the outside areas rose (POWERFUL) its ok that is strengthening the question. It would completely different for Must Be True ( MBT) and Most Strongly Supported (MSS)

Also this is a Causal argument so LOOPHOLES that break the conclusion in causal arguments are

1) New factor causing one or both A->B (LOOPHOLE #2)

What is C causes A and B or only B

2) No relationship- Like my first loophole saying what if its not from making the school start at 8:30

3) Backwards causation instead of saying A->B it could be B-> A ( but that not relevant in this question/ argument