I was so close to choosing A but changed my answer because of the "In general," I recently got a question wrong bc it was a more specific case and then the answer choice made a general claim with "in general" but I see now that this stimulus is making a general claim.

I think it based on the fact that it is more in their interest. Like if you are able to get 100 and a potential new client then it could be viewed more so as a win than losing 1000 + $$$ (cost of shipping) Say $1005 loss or 900 loss. It is not a complete win, but it is more in the company's interest to do so. Not a perfect answer imo, but better than the others.

This was supper helpful I am going to do this for all flaw questions from here on out! Thanks for this

I think likely because of the complexity of the question.

I think influence can be synonomus with effect and a bit with cause (although cause is much stronger, since influence just implys that is one of the factors.) Like smoking influences an increase risk to lung cancer. Your diet, stress, and excercise also influence this.

We don't, thats exactly the point. The author is saying that the hormons effect or cause heart disease, but it could simply be a corralation, maybe heart disease causes the hormones, maybe something else causes both. Or maybe they have no relation they just happen to occure at the same time but have no interaction.

Dogs cant meow. Cats can meow. There are things in the city if San Diego that are not dogs.

Therefore all those things can meow.

The flaw answer would be.

It is possible dogs are not the only things that can not meow.

I originally chose C thinking the error was with the planet-sun relationship, but it was in labeling everything else not earth as having the characteristic of the sun,

Once you take the planets out of the question the error is super obvious.

I thought by him derviving another conclusion with the same evidence that meant the eveidence was contradictory, but contradicting the evidence would mean that a single geene was found, but the argument never says that only that there could be another interpretation of the data rather than the data contradicting each other. He also clearly states that he doesnt dispute the evidence, but I though that meant he thinks the evidence is correct, but still contradictory lol

Lesson learned .

Thank you! 4 years later your comment really helped me out!

#Feedback if there is a specific flaw thats been commited perhaps it should be mentioned or written in the video. So that we can research other examples to get a better understanding of the flaws.

I choose C both times, mostly BC the passage says there is a little documentation of his alleged crualty (to support him being a crual ruler), so in a way A to me strenthens the argument, but not by much, because we already knew there was a little anyway. So it doesnt support it that much. It also doesnt imply that they took away/ or destroyed any of the historical writings of his rule, but instead that they may have altered/written it.

So C gives support for the second premise in that the history that is written about him was plagerized/fabricated/ or otherwise not specific to his actual crimes, bc someone just wrote the same stuff from the past, could have been a ruling fam who just rewrote history. Like some kinda mythology or something like that( likes hes the devil kinda vibes.) I dont think thats too far a reach for this Q.

Thank you for this!

I got it wrong both times LOL its still bad haha

I'm intrested in joining. Currently at a 167 Avarage. Taking the test in June, but will continue studing for Sept just incase. If anyones working still on the CC I'd be happy to have a CC buddy.

Thanks for this! Sending you good luck!

I disagree with the comment above regarding a full year, but the June PT is quite close and your target goal is quite far away. If you finished the Core Curriculum (CC), I would say buckle down and take Blind Review (BR) very seriously. Try to complete 2 PTs fully with BR for each question and answer each week, or at minimum 1, and really dig into each question to get the most information out of them. Break down each stimulus into all its fundamental parts: conclusion, premise, background information, opposing argument, etc., as well as each answer choice. Once you've done this and reviewed your mistakes, you should see an improvement within 2-4 PTs if you put in the time and effort to really BR each question, even Reading Comprehension (RC) and Logic Games (LG).

CC shows you how to do the test in separate parts; it takes a moment for more things to click. But when they do, you should see some bumps up in your score as more things click together, become more automatic, and your confidence and accuracy increase.

It took me about a month to reach my PT scores, then about 2 months after that for that score to become my base and to reach my next BR score. So you definitely can make August.

In between PTs, I would drill the areas that you're weakest at according to your analytics and BR the same for the drills. It is super important that you do not look at the answers until you fully finished BR because it diminishes the returns from what you could have learned from your mistakes so treat the BR just as seriously as you would an actual test.

If you have the time, I would consider taking a break. Let what you learned sink in a bit. Then come back with the 7Sage method. I took a Blueprint course (garbage and expansive horrible lol), and my score dropped 5 points from my diagnostic, so I know your pain. Since you already have some foundations and they arent working, I would suggest trying to build new ones. Think of your mind as a blank slate. Adopt a "you know nothing" mindset. Then, really take each beginning step seriously. For me, breaking into the 160s was about first being humble and slowly mastering the foundational lessons (and really, each lesson afterward is just an extension and practice of the foundations).

From just the 7Sage Core Curriculum, I broke into the 160s. I'm currently in the 170s, and I would say it is in part due to the course and hughly due to the community, although it requires self-discipline to do it alone.

The biggest advice I can give is to really slowly rip apart and dissect every part of the stimulus, questions, and passages. Mark the conclusions, premises, background info, and every single referential phrase for every single question until you don't even think about it. Comment on each question about why it is wrong (and if you can, what could you do to make it right, and if it would be acceptable for any other question type, for example, strengthen or weaken). When you can correctly dissect questions and answers like this, you will definitely see a quick improvement in my opinion within two or three PTs or drill sets.

When you're able to break the test down to its fundamental parts, and quickly, you will start to see the patterns of the test. It will also expose your gaps in logic and ability. You'll have something to compare against the correct answer and logic to see where you can improve.

If you don't have much time, I would recommend listening to their LSAT podcast. It answered some questions and made me feel more relaxed thinking about the test. Being relaxed and really stop caring so much about the score does wonders too.

Hope that helps! Good luck and keep your head up! If you ever want to study, I'd be down to show you how I BR. I'm currently looking at the June test as well and study at least 2-5 hours a day.

I'm in the IE (Riverside) but down to study virtually. I'm intrested to hear what you learned from the powerscore and loophole stuff. I haven't yet finished the CC, but I am consistently scoring above 170+ on PT's and BR 179-180.

I'm planning on the June LSAT and focusing heavily on LR and RC, but also considering August and will continue a light study schedule after the June exam, just incase I have to retake it lol.

Initially I did not get this one at all I zoomed thought the rest of LR and skipped this one and took the L. I eliminated E bc I thought it contradicted the premise, But upon focusing on the word weather pattern in the AC it makes complete sense, albeit very confusing wording.

But if you negate E it removes the possiblitiy that anything else could have caused it besides a something with a 7 day cycle. It blocks the possiblity that anything else at least in nature caused it when paired with the other premise, that 7 day cycles in nature are weak trash and negligible.

I got this Q wrong BC I couldnt make sense out of C and was confused by the parallel.

For MSS super important to really understand the passage.

Check the passage against wrong answers. The answer is in the passage.

When I realized this error in BR i couldnt distingish the difference between C and E

Electrical load d vs maximum operating temp

Both say they increase, but I put them as inter-changeable with each other, when they clearly are not.

One of my biggest mistakes on this test is allowing my mind to fill in those gaps and interchange words and ideas like this.

Stay vigilant LSAT fam we wount make these mistakes next time :)

Very good observation thanks for this :)

I think it isnt A because the regulator never disputes the scandal, but instead is shifting the blame for the hiring not the scandal. They aren't contesting the scandals.

That is what I thought as well

I wrote " This is tricky, because we dont know his eveidence, but we know he has none" and then I choose something else lol

I did not understand this premise at all. I should have been skeptical , because in my mind I thought none of the objects could therefore exist ever lol and that it was something else.

I should have tried to write out or draw out the Q next time!

Omg thank you I would have never understood this with out your explanation. Wishing you good luck and 100 years of prosperity.