Hey, I’m in Edmonton. I just took my first attempt today and am planning to take it again in June. My goal is 170+.. will be taking a few weeks off but would potentially be interested. Send me a pm if you’re interested.

120 is the lowest possible score. Regardless, nice work on the improvement and congrats on the score!

First off, I would say that it is safe to make this assumption because it states that these fish are taken from places where wild salmon attempt to feed. Its not a stretch to assume that a farmed and wild fish that is the same species eats the same food is it?

Secondly, E does not weaken the conclusion. There are already several other reasons that farmed are better than wild according to the argument, but E is not pointing us in a direction that we are less likely to believe that the best reason to prefer farmed is ecological.

Lastly, that is the conclusion of the argument. So you were correct in thinking that it is.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that if we take what is said as exhaustive that A would be correct. A would have to also say 'or they have 5 or fewer letters' for it to be correct. Unless I misread what you were getting at.

I have a feeling that their study journey is likely over since this was posted 10 years ago 😂

The passage talks both about dependency and maturity both as you eluded too. It is quite apparent that he means that these two things are opposite or at least conflicting ideas when he states that the kids out one way and end another.

Infantile = immature = dependant is how I saw it.

Not sure if that helps or what you are explicitly asking.

I made the same reasoning error in this one.

So what we know is:

the best compost --> 40-60% org matter + dark brown

contra: /40-60% org matter OR /dark brown --> /best compost

So in E it doesnt say anything about the % of the organic matter so we cannot infer anything from the information given about it being dark brown.

On the other hand we also know:

compost with strong ammonia smell --> not good compost

(compost with strong ammonia smell --> not used for drainage and fertility --> not good compost)

So regardless of what other qualities it has we know that compost with a strong ammonia smell is sufficient on its own for concluding that its not good compost. The fact that they mention that it is dark brown is irrelevant and is put into the AC as a distraction.

I am feeling very inspired. The solutions have all been laid out for us. The only thing that can get in the way now is myself. And that is a choice either way. We can all reach our goals if our actions are aligned with our intentions.

"You must try your best and that's the best anybody can do"

I would say that this is the correct reasoning below. We dont know anything about ALL PEOPLE. We know something about all recent grads. So if AC A said, all recent grads who consider work environment important also consider salary then it would be a valid conclusion. Its very much the same idea as AC D. If it said all recent grads... then it would be a valid conclusion. I hope that makes sense!

It was recommended to me to diagram these questions until I build up the intuition so I can see it clearly in my head. There really is no easy way to do this other than continual practice.

I tend to agree with what you are saying for the most part. I do think that if we ignore the SC that we can conclude that the argument is valid.

But, in saying that, the question stem is asking us to find a flaw in the argument right? So, if we stay grounded in what we are being asked then it is necessary for us to consider the SC even though what is stated afterwards seems to be correct. If the question stem was not asking us to find the flaw, then it would be possible to ignore that.

The various question types require different strategies so its very important to stick with what is being asked in each specific question.

Rewrite the stim:

S: In a recent survey, 95%+ of people who bought a SL car last year said they were very satisfied with their car. If people who have bought a new car in the last year find a manufacturing defect, then they are not very satisfied. Therefore, SL cars must be free from manufacturer defects.

T: That may not necessarily be the case because there are times when a cars manufacturing defects become apparent only after several years of use.

Q - How is T’s response related to S’s argument?

Correct AC - C - T is offering a consideration (that these SL cars may actually in fact have manufacturer defects that have not been noticed yet because sometimes it can take several years) which undermines the support of S’s conclusion (people are satisfied and if there cars had defects they would not be satisfied, therefore there are no defects).

I am not trying to be negative so forgive me if it comes across that way, but I am confused how you would not think the author opposes this view from reading passage A?

The sentence explicitly states it when it says, "Does not mean, as relativist claim..." The author disagrees with these relativist historians directly by saying this!

I came back to this lesson after finishing the remainder of the CC, doing a lot of live classes and drilling and now it makes sense. It is not necessary to understand this lesson for 99% of the LSAT questions I have seen so far.

For anyone who is just going through the CC for the first time, give yourself a break and move on from this lesson and come back in a month or so and it will make way more sense to you!

You are correct in that thinking in that it is essentially context. It is important to know what is in the domain in the case one of the answer choices gives you information that would be correct in meeting the conditions being asked about but is outside of the domain. They will try and fool you sometimes on the test.

But, you are also making a mistake with the example you wrote, "Only" indicates the necessary condition so be careful with that because what you wrote is actually saying:

Allowed in the house --> black cat + 4 paws + nice + like salmon

So with that being said, since the example is written backwards you actually dont have a domain to kick up.

That makes sense! I was curious how it would be helpful but that explains it. Thanks for the reply :)

this is exactly how I had it mapped aswell! Thanks for sharing

why?

https://7sage.com/lesson/principle-theory-and-approach/

I would agree with that. The author does not state if they believe that it was a sharply defined period. They do state that the evidence from the Mars rock dates too about 4 billion years ago but does not specify if they think the LHP was a sharply defined period or more of a continuous longer term thing.

For the 7 lessons:

We use them in the same way. Until and Unless are both group 3 indicator words. They both indicate that we are to negate the sufficient condition. You are to look at them as the same word.

and for the 8 lessons:

If you choose to diagram these prescriptive statements then yes you can still confuse sufficient for necessary. Although it is not conditional, it is a rule, so it is important to ensure that you have the correct order.

For example: In 8.1

If you diagrammed,

/considerate--> loud

you are saying if someone is inconsiderate that guarantees they are loud which is not the same as what the sentence is saying. It is the opposite, so it is important to be careful with this otherwise it may cause us to think an invalid conclusion is valid from the information given.

The indicator words in this lesson are telling us to negate the sufficient condition in the sentence, but the sentences have both sufficient and necessary conditions. In order to have a logical condition we must always have both otherwise it is not a conditional relationship.

This lesson is aimed and teaching us which form the condition is present because there is a big difference in saying A-->B or /A-->/B.

Whatever we put on the left side of the arrow is always the sufficient condition and whatever we put on the right side of the arrow is necessary.

So using A-->B example, A is sufficient and B is necessary. If we translate the sentence backwards and diagram /A-->/B then we have confused sufficient for necessary and made up a completely new idea that is incorrect.

I hope that provides some clarity to your question :)

I was able to decide on D after being between A and D because A is the authors opinion stated in the last paragraph. The author states this but there is no reference to lawyers taking this into consideration in the passage, therefore we cannot infer that lawyers believe this from the words on the page.

What evidence? It says that they have provided 'no evidence'..

I suppose the way A could be correct would be if the council member talking was one with the view in favour of the courthouse stating that because there is no evidence against the courthouse being the bests option then that is proof it is the best option.

It is important to only consider the words on the page, which in this case is no evidence

I am confused about the conditional diagram. Since it says people are concerned only with their self interest... doesnt this indicate group 2 Necessary. And if thats the case the conclusion would actually be:

/democracy --> strictly selfish

I am not sure it really matters anyways as I was able to get the answer correct without diagramming, but for practice I thought it would be good to diagram it and see what JY came up with. I am likely wrong as I cant see JY getting this confused but I was wondering if anyone could clarify this for me?

Thanks

#feedback

You may be aware already, but you have to get accommodations to write a paper version of the test. Only digital versions are offered to those who have not been approved for this specific accommodation.