small-scale workers "think otherwise" regarding "promising material for large-scale". So their stance is established on large-scale work, so the author's conclusion is not confusing small vs large as in option A.

"It always takes two errors to get a question wrong, you have to be attracted to the wrong one, and you have to overlook the right one." love this

ah my last practice q before the june retest. Love you all. pray for me

Cringe troll post. There are more productive ways to use your time fyi

JY's "you see?" catchphrase is timeless and iconic

maybe D would be a better option if the author revealed a premise that makes the ideal "certain way" unnatural itself. Now the other people's argument would contradict itself, since we are supposed to avoid the not "certain way" because its unnatural, but the ideal way also turns out to be unnatural.

Weird final sentence. It uses a premise indicator (moreover) but is an opinion so functions as a conclusion.. but there isn't really premise to support it. Just an irrelevent sentence thrown in there as JY said. Luckily it wasn't mentioned in the answer choices.

Scrolling down to see the actual artwork after taking a deep dive into the passage was really refreshing.

I think one can reasonably assume a long lasting relationship is sufficient for an enduring relationship. So option A looks more clear now, as affinity → enduring relationship → LLR

I think B could be a more viable choice if they mentioned whether or not the unsuccessful group improved in achievement after attempting the program. Then you could compare the two groups across all the relevant variables. Even better, B could talk about a group who did not complete the program, but had the same levels of achievement improvement afterwards. This would give us a sort of control group and weaken the relevance of the program success causing achievement after. I think B is very tempting since it sounds like a sort of control group at first, its just missing a lot.

C feels like a classic confounder/third variable situation to me. Cause: some students have a desire to gain entry to a chess club with high grade reqs Effect1: They join chess club and work hard in it to succeed Effect2: they work hard to achieve the grades they need. Effect1 and Effect2 could very well be independent of one another and this weakens.

about to take my June LSAT flex. its been a journey guys! wish me luck and good luck to all of you :)

going from 7sage videos of PT 1 all the way to May 2020 PT, it's neat to see JY has slowly refined his approach along with myself.

on the bright side, the trap answer choice was so convincing that I only wasted a minute getting this wrong and then moved on in my ignorant bliss c:

Wow, this LR had SEVEN 5-star difficulty questions and it was 26 questions in 35 min. Congrats on getting through it

lsat writers love testing this "false hypothesis" concept. It always seems to be the correct answer in flaw questions, and here it was important to understand the concept so you could correctly rule it out.

this question made me hungry. I think I will go eat a sandwich now

The flawed reasoning in option A of #19 has definitely appeared in some LR questions.

My attempt at solving this with conditional logic and quantum trigonometry:

Premise: getting what you want → Pleasure

Assumption 1: getting what you want → you have a want in the first place, aka a desire

Assumption 2: since "getting what you want" always yields these two necessary conditions, the author erroneously links the two necessary conditions, coming up with his conclusion sentence: if anyone desires anything→ Pleasure must be that thing. The general flaw itself is kind of intuitive, but also the flaw can be objectively seen in his linking of the two necessary assumptions directly to one another. While this makes a cool triangle, it is wrong since we know intuitively and by the given conditional logic that desire does not always have to coincide with pleasure as he concludes.

This brings us to Pizza Boy in option C, who also has an infatuation with triangularly flawed reasoning, perhaps inspired by his favorite cheesy object of gluttony. Here, his engagement in an action (gorging on pizza)→an effect(tummy ache). If we parallel the above assumptions, we know that an action such as getting what you want or eating pizza→reason or desire for the action. We can anticipate Pizza Boy's next move: without missing a beat, he connects the two necessary assumptions just like the author (reason for action→must be for tummy ache), therein completing the triangle with an almost ritualistic conviction, as if to summon some sort of forbidden pizza abomination from the nether. He should fix his poor diet, find God, get out more, maybe make a cool friend like Julio to go tear shit up with.

Sorry if anyone read that. I just realized I have to take the LSAT writing in the next two weeks and I haven't studied or practiced writing at all. The End.

here I am prepondering what the heck preponderance means

Q11 and Q13 use the same trick to bait you into the most popular wrong answers. Read carefully!

The harder 80s tests will just make you better when the real test comes around for you. Focus on this perspective and the demoralization will turn around into a confidence boost! Your score drops are just indicative of you encountering questions/concepts out of your comfort zone, and learning from these will make you much more well rounded for the real test.

This is one of those questions in which it's much easier to articulate why the right answer is right than it is to articulate why an answer like B is wrong.

it's okay ancient amber preserved insects, I don't think you're grotesque c:

While I wouldn't say there is explicit conditional statements being given, you can kind of translate some of the info into a statement that supports E. The first sentence's use of "arise" suggests a causal relationship between "perception" and lawsuits. Then use the second to last sentence to roughly translate to actions→lawsuits . Contrapose this and link it to the first sentence and you have "perception" can cause lawsuits, and the presence of lawsuits is related to the presence of "actions". This roughly links patient perception and physician actions, maybe giving enough basis for us to infer option E. Disclaimer: my explanation may be very wrong

huge props to the 39% of you who got #16 correct. You guys are on point! #goals