Humbled. As always, it is always the small things with the LSAT test makers.

I honest to god prefer conditional logic questions... If you just view the question as a math problem where you have to match the given expression, it becomes so easy.

Like, if the question says 1 + 1 = 2, then you are literally just looking for the answer choice that also says 1 + 1 = 2. The only real hurdle is grammar parsing!

Sunked 2 minutes, but got it correct. Parsing the argument on this one almost threw me because I didn't catch the "auto mechanics" vs "mechanics with expierence" at first. The shallow dipping really saved me from going over a lot though, very useful technique.

Thing is I am writing out the argument in lawgic, because it is hard for me to hold it in my head or really understand the conditional logic without writing. But I imagine that skill comes with practice.

Anyway, not too bad, we got this chat.

Overthought this one a tad bit, since I thought this one was trying to trick me like previous question with the last 2 AC. "You won't trick me this," to which they indeed ended up tricking me.

Got it in BR, but at what cost?

I knew this was a question of directionality, but I gaslighted myself under time pressure.

The argument grants us that the critics believe in the low general economic confidence. (A) Then to weaken this argument, you have to link it B, in this case, personal economic confidence.

Basically saying; Hey, even if it is B, A still leads to B regardless, which means the counter to the critics is flawed.

I read cogent as cognizant, and just thought it meant a convincing argument. I mean, it lead me to the right answer I guess!

#Humbled me real quick after I was feeling good from the previous question. I think I got bogged down on trying to draw out the causal chain. While it is important to understand, SA's, so far, focus on an argument holistically. The causal chain is only important regards to the question; "Does it make sense?" It isn't the crux of the argument otherwise. Since I got fooled into focusing on all my brain power on it, I didn't even spare a glance that spaceships was just randomly thrown in inference in this argument.

Convinced myself I was wrong </3

The fact I knew I was looking for a problem with the chain of support allowed me to get this instantly. Felt a little bit like cheating T_T.

I knew my time on this one was going to be fucked so I just sat with the answer until I knew it was right.

A whopping 9 minutes LOL.

Craziest thing is that I picked A a lot earlier, but these fuck ass test makers always make me doubt myself.

These test makers are ruthless bro... If I didn't catch the single word "believe" on a second read of the stem, I would have chosen E with no hesitation. I am learning that you just have to read slow and methodically both the question stem and the answer choices.

Don't let these assholes catch you lacking, lock in twin.

Bro these questions! I read Main Street location as the MAIN LOCATION as in, that Walnut Lane Street had to be the MAIN LOCATION of the video stores. I literally parsed out the grammar correctly, but got thrown by that simple misread of Main Street. Very annoying test makers. Welp, gotta read carefully.