Honestly, I wouldn't ever really review my wrong answer journal. It's more of a tool to make sure you're keeping yourself accountable to learning the lessons in the questions you missed. You can't "fake" writing it down - it being exactly why you picked the wrong answer, and why you didn't pick the right answer.

Our brains have evolved to think in very general broad strokes - it makes sense, it's faster than thinking about everything in detail. But unfortunately, that doesn't serve you when trying to learn about your mistakes on the LSAT. This is what the wrong answer journal is for. It's for keeping yourself accountable to writing down the reasons you got something wrong instead of leaning on the broad general strokes that your brain comes up with when watching an explanation videos.

Also, if you don't want to write out the wrong answer journal, I would dictate it. It's much faster.

,

I ran into the same problem. I also did the formal logic and ended up with A because it matched the logic.

A is basically saying that: JP (Jennifer plays) -> /TL (team lose)

The conclusion of the argument is that if Jennifer plays the team is ENSURED to WIN.

Not losing is not necessarily winning. What if they tied?

I think this question was bullshit, but I understand why AC A. is wrong.

Hey Kevin,

I'd like to second OssifyingLobe's comment regarding the lack of ability for users who are taking the LSAT online to "mark-up" the test - at least to the extent that J.Y does in the explanation videos.

I will avoid repeating OssifyingLobe's points, but I think that the most important idea to consider is that the EXPECATATION for students to mark up the questions is still present. Whenever J.Y does the formal logic, or grammar parsing, he often diagrams it within the videos. I understand the arguments that this is the only way to actually teach the content due to the video format, as well as the idea that students are supposed to reach the point where we're doing the logic in our heads, but I believe that, since there is no disclaimer for this, students expect to have the ability to draw the diagrams on the test because that's how they've been TAUGHT.

Evidence of this presents itself all over the comment section of 7sage. I'm done with 70% of the logical reasoning curriculum, and I constantly see the sentiment of - "Should we be diagraming on the tests? Do we have time to diagram these out on the tests? Should we be doing the grammar parsing in our heads?" etc.

I don't predict that anyone thinks physically drawing the ENTIRE explanation out for each question is realistic. But, since J.Y teaches us to draw out the logic, I expect its helpful for students to draw it out in a short form way on the exam.

Being unable to do this - directly on the screen given we're taking it at home in a digital format - is really disappointing, and possibly harmful to the student considering, once again, it's how J.Y teaches us in the videos.

I guess there's the argument that we cannot mark up the drills either (to the same extent J.Y does), so that's practice for the same test format. But, even in that sense, I, as a student, expect to be able to diagram the same way J.Y does, especially in parsing out complex logic.

I agree with OssifyingLobe's disclaimer that it's too late to really do much about it in terms of videos on the curriculum. (I'm a video editor and re-recording and re-editing all of the videos would not outweigh the cost.)

So my suggestion would be to be transparent to the students. Tell them that, if they're taking the LSAT online, they aren't going to be able to parse out this logic in the same way. Introduce strategies that could replace being able to "draw" on the test, that are similarly effective. This would introduce a consistent way for them to practice using the actual tools given to them on the test - and would translate to the online format.

In my opinion, the big issue with this is the lack of addressing the issue on a macro scale, and doing this would be a big help to the students.

Thanks for considering!