Just kick lecturers/teachers into the domain and be done with it.

You down with OPP?

I got lost in the sauce on this one thinking there was an issue with the language jumping between Victorian apartments and "large" Victorian apartments. I think this could have been an issue had the total set of Victorian apartments been the larger group. In that case, none of the ACs would have been correct or valid. #feedback

Don't feel bad if this passage wrecked you.

Any question on the LSAT that indicates a belief should immediately set off alarm bells.

Oh yea, and do it within 8:06.

Tip: When the premise seems to be (or actually is) strongly supporting the conclusion, the gap (whether framed as a flaw or NA question) is typically in the space between the original subject and the new subject in the conclusion.

A tip that might be helpful that I use across the test is thinking absurdly. The context here is confusing because at first it seems reasonable. Swap out "approximate age" for something like "wears a t-shirt of my favorite band."

So now you have "wears a t-shirt of my favorite band" as something that makes one more comfortable to approach a stranger. This is pretty damn specific and probably not common, so it's totally unreasonable to think that most long-term friendships had this characteristic.

The "why" test on this one seems less helpful in distinguishing between the conclusion and major premise/sub conclusion, but simplifying the terms and illustrating it helped me, and I did get this one right:

P1: we're comforted by rhythmic sounds of the heartbeat; this supports P2

P2/sub conclusion: therefore we're drawn to rhythmic sounds; this supports MC

MC: therefore we like music with rhythmic sounds

Flipping the MC and P2 makes less sense: we like music with rhythmic sounds, therefore we're drawn to rhythmic sounds.

Hope this helps.

Easier if you change the context.

LeBron claims he'll score 40,000pts and become the NBA's all time leading scorer. If we find out whether his claim is true, we'll know if it's possible to score 40,000+ pts in a career.

Assumption being that only LeBron is capable of this, so if not him, then ain't nobody doin it.

FWIW there doesn't seem to be a noticeable difference between "hard" and "very hard"

How can one be especially virtuous if the stimulus then states that one is "no less" virtuous if...

It makes sense that this LR section ends with OJ, because the section was murder.

Don't like the method in this video? Throw the whole damn thing in a box. Use "cannot" as a slash/negation instead of a Group 4 (negate necessary) indicator. Instead, focus on "without" and use that as your conditional indicator instead.

So now we have: /X (good meal etc.) and Y (cultural values) as our two ideas. Apply the "without" Group 3 (negate sufficient), and I decided to negate the first idea and make it sufficient.

X (good meal etc.) > Y (cultural values)

This is exactly Answer A: good meal > cultural

Super easy when you use different context.

Example: Warmongering aliens invaded earth, but no single alien is able to wipe out humanity, so aliens must not be responsible for the extinction humanity.

Certainly a scenario where one doesn't need instructions is better than the principle raised in the stimulus. This one just tries to lock you into your assumption that instructions are always needed.

Me: pays ~$70/monthly for a subscription.

JY: You can figure out for yourself why the rest are wrong.

quick tip to pulling out the general flaw that you'll see elsewhere:

premise: "most often"

conclusion: therefore "most"

these should set off alarm bells, and you can almost cut out the rest of the noise.

I'd call this one a plurality and certainty flaw.

If B had said "to interpret reality is to express a worldview" would it still be correct?

#help

I'm sorry, but shouldn't A say something more like "shrimps and oysters require parasites" and therefore a seeming lack of parasites indicates a lack of shrimp and oyster, which indicates a poor environment?

#help (Added by Admin)

Is B actually necessary? Why do they have to be "indigenous"? What if 99% of the "species that inhabit them" weren't indigenous to the wetland being developed?

#help (Added by Admin)