I scheduled mine successfully in NYC

It's not helpful to just say yes and no for these. Explain!

#help

For A, isn't there a much lower constraint in "some" than in "almost all" in the stimulus? I don't understand why this doesn't logically hurt the analogy.

#Help

For B, I thought it was reasonable to assert that Alienation would have negative consequences for business since that was stated (lower sentiment). B did not say that the action, with a combination of alienation and manipulation, would on net be bad for business.

E lies on a pretty large assumption and B MBT regarding the premises (or at least the gap is smaller between sentiment and how that affects business).

Hi, for 22 you mention that there are two tests, 1 that the answer choice has to be factually accurate, and 2 that it has to be supported by the passage. Is this true? I feel like I have seen answers that are supported by the passage but not factually true. #help

#help #feedback

So the only reason (E) is not correct is the subtle wording difference of ignoble (not noble) and seen as possessing nobility? Because without this distinction (E) is /nobility -> /tragedy which necessarily needs to be valid.

I thought the difference was between other loans and loans for mortgages. That's why I liked B, which differentiated between these two groups (the discrepancy between them). We are first shown the relationship of credit scores to most loans, then the relationship between credit scores and mortgages. B says that the difference between the two is that the latter receives worse information than the former from the scores provided. #help

#help For Q13 is suffering not a human emotion?

#Help #feedback

I think my problem for a lot of these inference questions is the looseness of how they are evaluated. For example, a statement in the text could be "many cats are soft" and it could be guesstimated that the author thinks that "many cats feel good to pet". This is a stretch from the prompt but there would be some kind of support. A trap answer may be like "cats are fundamentally soft", or may play around with other strong language, like all/most, but there feels like there is a similar gap between the two.

My problem is the many/most distinction is not supported at all, whereas soft=good to pet will be supported, so despite them being similarly close to the original, only one can be inferred.

I got 15 right, but sloppy explanation of why D is incorrect. African American literature is a subset of American Literature. I think the real reason why it is wrong is that for it to be "necessary" is not proven.

"Unknown" does not mean that these structures did not exist, it just means that we did not know if they existed or not. Claiming that D is descriptively inaccurate makes a flawed assumption. #help

#help #feedback

Why do we choose

friendships -m> felt comfy

and not the other way around when feeling comfy causes the friendships? Shouldn't it be a causation arrow pointing the other direction? Why arbitrarily choose to just stick a m in there (or why couldn't we do a m/c arrow the other way still?) when the other part of the prompt is causation logic?

Therefore, long-term friends are probably of the same approximate age as each other since most long-term friendships begin

because someone felt comfortable approaching a stranger.

I think my problem with this question, and other LSAT questions, is in the burden set by "supported" and "unsupported" questions.

For example, in the course, the infamous Waller and Chin question had a very slim burden in one of the incorrect questions, where the stimulus 1 suggested that X would be accepted by most of the population, and stimulus 2 suggested that X would not be accepted by critics, and therefor would not be accepted by the general population. One of the incorrect questions said that they would disagree over whether the critics would accept it.

Obviously, you can infer that they would not accept it in Stim1, which suggests a slim burden, because that answer is incorrect. You cannot infer that in the general population subset there are critics.

But this question has a much different burden, where both speakers have differing views on the dangers of unauthorized computers (one thinks that it does not physically endanger people, the other thinks that it does...), but neither expressly share their opinion on how the unauthorized use of computers is as dangerous to people as is joyriding.

Sure, in hindsight, "the LSAT is always right". But my concern is that with such a sloppy and loose set of burdens, they can never be right since the goal posts will never be in the same spot twice.

Can you please refute this so I don't lose my mind haha?

Thank you

#feedback

I feel like the main problem with A is that it says "is incorrect," where in the stimulus it seems to actually advance both arguments. It isn't arguing against them.

For 15, E, you just said "no it doesn't". This isn't a great explanation. The whole passage is about how objectivism tries to find truth within different perspectives.

#help

Isn't E for #20, by using only if, actually (though not intuitively) saying:

Host thrive -> Parasite thrive?

If so, this is supported. I understand that only if is not implied this way, but rules are rules...

For 15, isn't the drink pretty strongly and directly psychologically characterizing the character?