This one took me a lot longer than it should, but I found that by identifying the conclusion and prephrasing what seemed to be missing linked directly to the correct AC E. Obviously it is not a strategy that will always work, but sometimes the most helpful thing is to engage with the stimulus. What is it saying, why is it saying that, how could it be they got to the conclusion.

The conclusion is the last sentence: 'Consumers who do not bother to acquire such information are thereby behaving rationally'

How do we get from the premise to conclusion, or in other words, I asked myself why? Why are they behaving rationally. Well its because:

Consumers do not expect that the benefits will outweigh the cost.

Which directly leads to E.

I am finding things are starting to really click by gaining a comprehension of the grammar and structure. I was able to identify the sub conclusion/major premise, premise, and conclusion successfully which allowed me to understand what was being said and what was missing. A month ago I had a really hard time confidently labelling the stimulus. Practice and continued work does pay off. If you are struggling stay patient and persistent. It will come!

The way I broke this down in a more simple way than video which allowed me to get to correct AC.

Conclusion:

-We wont know if sentient beings exist unless they are at least as intelligent as humans.

Why:

Premise 1 - we will not be able to send a spacecraft

Premise 2 - to communicate with us, they would have to be at least as intelligent as humans

So adding in D

-If they cannot communicate with us, then the only way to detect its existence is by sending a spacecraft

-- so we already know we cant send a spacecraft (premise 1)

-- so the only way to detect them would be to communicate with them.. and how would we do that? well, they would have to be at least as intelligent as us (premise 2)

Perhaps this will help someone who is confused by explanation.

Lots of angry people below blaming the LSAC and complaining! Thats sad.

I got this wrong, but I am not upset. I see it as a positive when I get one wrong as it allows an opportunity for growth. It is important to learn from these difficult questions. In order to get to the next level of comprehension it is essential to spend time analyzing the correct and incorrect AC's thoroughly rather than just getting upset and blaming the LSAC for being unfair. Or insisting that you're AC is correct and the LSAC is wrong haha. Good grief! Parsing the grammar, structure inside and out - there is much more to be gained from spending a significant amount of quality time with one question rather than going through a large quantity of questions.

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

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

Hey there, my plan is to write for the first time in January/February *2025 and will likely plan to write again in April/May.

I spent quite a bit of time asking and learning about the study process and would be happy to share what I am doing. Hope it is able to help in any sort of way :)

I am studying 20-30 hours a week and have been studying since the start of June. I am going through the CC, doing live courses, drilling, and participating in group drilling sessions in a discord group. I try and study 4-6 hours/day and try and take one day off per week, however, I usually still do an hour on 'days off', which likely is not wise as I hear a lot about burnout and should be mindful of that. I am considering possibly getting a tutor down the road but there is lots of work to do before then.

A typical day is usually 1-2 live class, 1-3 hours on CC, 30 min doing RC practice. I usually try and do two 2/3 hour group drilling sessions on discord per week aswell. Studying with others has been one of the most effective parts of my studying thus far.

I have been told that doing full PT's right now would be a waste of a valuable resource and I will likely be spending the next 2 months doing what I am doing. Once the CC is done and I am confident I have spent ample time drilling I will move on to doing full sections with BR's and then moving on to doing 1 PT/week with a full BR process that will incorporate an in depth wrong answer journal.

I would like to find a group of like minded people that have goal scores above 170 to do weekly BR calls but will look into that once I am closer to doing full PT's.

There is a live class with Bailey that offers more insights into study plans. It may be useful if you are looking to get other peoples insights.

Very surprised this is a 5*.. go me!

It looks like A was a popular answer. I was one who fell for the trap. Ooops. So in review why is A wrong?

The average number of children has decreased --> does not specify what the baseline number was and we cannot assume that just because this number is going down that we can classify the size of families from large to small. It is a very vague statement and could mean a lot of different things, none of which we can make accurate assumptions about.

Also, like JY states, it does not specify that the children are the ones getting the allergies. It could be any portion of the population. A good reminder to read more carefully.

It is very clear now as to why this is wrong and to why I fell for it. Mooooooving on!

A is worded in an unclear way but if you parse out the grammar it becomes obvious. It caused me to skip over it the first time through but I was able to catch it on the second round.

The way I understand A:

Although there are less car thieves (and therefore less cars being stolen)...

..A larger percentage of these thieves are staying with the car until it is detected stolen and therefore caught (and convicted)

(this is a different way of saying the same idea that is stated in the AC which is it says in that a smaller percentage of people are abandoning the cars before detection)

So we are making the assumption that if the thieves are not with the car when the owner reports it stolen then it is less likely that they will be caught, and therefore convicted of the crime.

Also, for some people it can be confusing when they start with an absolute number (total number of cars being stolen) and transition into probability/percentage ( % of thieves that are caught and convicted). Its good practice to rewrite it in your own words in the early learning stages to fully understand what is going on. The time aspect will come naturally once the comprehension is at the level it needs to be.

I found this question easier than the previous. Finding the AC that doesn't help explain versus the regular way of asking the question and finding the one AC that RRE's.

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.

I found this question super easy before watching this video. The way it is explained in the video adds a lot of confusion and the way he goes through all of the conditional logic is not straight forward at all... maybe that's just me. But after reading the stim it was very obvious what the conclusion was.. I almost wish I didnt watch the video for this one.

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

If you were using the old PT's at all I also have a document that shows which old test sections they used to make the 101-158 series. If that would be of use to you send me a DM and I can pass it along to you

This is what is on the study plan coda document that Bailey shares during her classes

NEW PT USAGE GUIDE

101-130 - syllabus (7sage CC)

130-135 - drilling

135-140 - full sections

145-158 - Full Pt's

Hope that helps!

I fell for B just as he explained how someone may think that W was saying that! It is good to be humbled from time to time to avoid being overconfident.

I thought that the way it says 'is surrounded by ongoing debate and misinformation' caused me to think that the author does have an opinion on this. Obviously we do not know yet, but adding the misinformation after debate caused me to feel that they likely do not have a neutral view.. maybe this is a stretch but just something I noticed.

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"

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 34 and just started studying in June of this year. There is no one size fits all to this thing called life. Keep going, you can do it!

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.

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!

I was surprised to see that B is such a popular choice. To me it was very obvious it was incorrect for a couple reasons.

First off, B says 'using current technology, it would be possible..'

The stimulus says

" 'If' steel plants 'could'...then they would reduce electricity and save money".

So right away it is apparent that this does not fit. B is basically taking the 'If they could 'part and replacing it with 'Steel plants can..." We are not talking about the likelihood of them having the ability to carry out this process or looking for a way to validate the theory. The stimulus is pointing to a conclusion in a world where they can do this already or assuming its possible. The missing information is a gap between this process being valuable in a way that would lead to saving money.

Secondly, using the negate test, which I find can be done most effectively by adding 'it is not the case that' in front of the AC rather than trying to properly negate what is said inside the AC.

B negated:

"It is not the case that using current technology, it would be possible for steel manufacturing plants to feed the heat...."

This does not speak to the conclusion about reducing electricity and saving money. If this is not true the conclusion still could very much be true because it is a conclusion based on theory. It does not specify that the process is impossible to carry out with future technology. Therefore it is not required for the arguments validity,

I hope that makes sense and does not further add to the confusion.

Happy Studying :)

I agree with several comments below in that this section really does not seem useful or specifically helpful.

The first time through it didn't make much sense, but after coming back a day later I do understand the concept, and am able to use the process to come to the conclusion, but it does not seem to serve much of a purpose. Furthermore, it actually seems to make things more confusing which directly goes against what the intended purpose seems to be?

Perhaps that is an indicator that I am fully understanding the conditional reasoning ideas and I can take that as a win rather than overthinking it. Or maybe it will be clear further down the road of the importance of this idea if its not clear now..