Manifesting: I will aim for a 180. I will score a 170+ score by November 2025.

Hi, my understanding is that A —> B or C & we are informed that A occurred and B did not occur, this means that C must have occurred because A triggered either B or C reaction. We would use a process of elimination and know C occurred since we know B was not triggered. As a result, I believe you are correct in your understanding.

The only thing to be mindful of is when A —> B or C if we are NOT informed that B did not occur and ARE informed C did occur, this does not automatically B did not occur, it is still possible B occurred.

Hi, I believe "cannot" does not trigger the group 4 rule because when you consider the sentence as a whole, the statement follows the outline of "if A, then B." As a result, you are already following group 1 sufficiency.

Also, you could always try following group 4 and see if it makes sense if you're unsure. If we follow the group 4 rule, it would be the following in lawgic:

/N or /O -> M

In English, it would be something along the lines of:

If N or O is not adopted, then M will be adopted.

Now translated, we can compare our results with the original statement. Through this, it can be seen that group 4's logic does not align with the original statement.

Ultimately, the ability to distinguish which group logic/rule to use will become more intuitive through practice and time. If I missed anything or misunderstood a part, feel free to follow up.

Hey, I had the same thought process when I first attempted to solve this. After further reviewal, I see where I can improve on. For background context, I used EPA, IT, & H as well.

The reason SC is used rather than EPA is because the sentence focuses on the idea to qualify as a "suspected class", I find EPA is additional fluff & gets more specific to what we are talking about if that makes sense. EPA is still important of course, but in the overall picture, qualifying as a "suspected class" to get to EPA is the point.

In relation to IT, I recognize while in this situation one may be able to discern & figure out the encompassing meaning with just IT. In the long run, I find it's beneficial to understand why I refers to "plaintiff make a showing that homosexuality is an immutable trait". It's important to mentally include the whole sentence because the following sentence directly mentions how the plaintiffs have NOT cited any information, etc to show homosexuality as an immutable trait. When statements because more complex, I believe it will be important to understand this nuance.

Lastly, using h to refer to "homosexual plaintiffs" is something I suppose I am wondering if it's still okay to just use "homosexuality" since I don't find a major difference. I suppose it is more specific which can help when dealing with increasingly complex statements. I will continue to work on this & see if I see any notable improvements.

I agree, overall, at least for this question, the main idea of what is being said is understood. If I misunderstood something, y'all pls let me know.

Yes!

Personal example: A piano is sufficient/enough information to conclude that the thing is an instrument. It is not necessary to be a piano to be considered an instrument because there are other instruments like a guitar or trumpet. However, to be considered a piano, you must be (necessary) an instrument.

Yay, happy to complete the Grammer portion :)! Onto the next!

Thank you! This is an excellent explanation and I understand why "now" was chosen. The key word is truly "had" as the word introduces time and implies "now". This serves as a reminder to once again to review the choice of words in a statement more thoroughly.

Originally, I decided on "not very cold days" versus "very coldy days." Outside of this, I reached the same answers for the rest of the process.

Thank you for this thorough explanation for question #4. I was able to understand better why it isn't necessarily a negative comparative. I find this question and the offficial explanation to be a bit confusing, based on what was learned earlier. Truthfully, I also find that this is more a speculative statement and you can't really answer it without more context. I believe if given more context, I would have been able to figure out the correct comparative/understanding of the overall statements/conclusion/argument.

Wow! I love the inclusion of the video with Feynman. This section has completely changed the way I will be reading and taking the LSAT. This will assist me in reducing my time on each question I hope! When I took my diagnostic LSAT, abstractness was one of the qualities of the exam that stumped me because my stubborness in wanting to fully understand what each question was about led to burning time. As one may guess, I ended up running out of time on all my sections because some questions were on an abstract level beyond me that I couldn't fully comprehend. I have been reading books on a weekly basis and this has encouraged me to go outside my comfort once more to continue learning by applying this technique consistenly when applicable.

Hi,

I read your comment! Not sure if it helps, but here's insight from an outsider's perspective :).

Since you chose (D), I'd wager your response exemplifies not fully understanding/recognizing the argument/conclusion. The question's argument/conclusion stems in the final sentence: So these corporations' use of motivational posters is unlikely to achieve its intended purpose. The key words are "its intended purposes" which informs the reader that this arguement will solely be focusing on this.

Consequently, option (D), "does not adequately address the possibility that employee productivity is strongly affected by factors other than employees' motivation to work productively", introduces and welcomed the possibility of other factors which does not make sense when considering what the argument encompasses.

If you understood/recognized the argument/conclusion, then I believe you'd have been able to eliminate option (D) with more ease and your thought process would follow suit.

The alligator [subject] swims [verb] by the island [object].