If these are the questions that the LSAT writers come up with, they should not expect us to get them correct during a timed test unless they are trying to fry our brains before we even get into law school.

LSAT questions → (expect correct answers → fried brains)

LSAT questions and expect correct answers → fried brains

Ha probably did that lawgic wrong too smh. I'm going to bed.

Medium - 3/5 timed, 5/5 blind review. Timing is my biggest stressor.

It's insane that the target time for this question is a mere 2:19. How?

Ok, I was getting them all right in the beginning. Now I've taken a nosedive....

#help Still a tad bit confused why A isn't right. To me, the stimulus says "all such roadways" which seemed to be referencing the high-speed level, straight stretches of road only. Am I misunderstanding that?

HA first question that has genuinely pissed me off. I would've bet my entire LSAT score that D was right. OMG this was hurtful.

B still feels like the better answer. In E, just because they most likely will be forced to sell doesn't mean those shares are going to Morris. If a company is going bankrupt, then it should be fair to assume it will sell to anyone who wants the shares because they are going under. You know, "whatever just take them I'm done."

But B is saying Morris is directly offering Azedcorp more money than what they paid. A corporation is a corporation, it wants to make a profit no matter how small, and here they get more than what they paid. So if they accept the deal, those shares go directly to Morris, which in turn makes her majority owner. Why is B not correct????

I was right at first, then second-guessed myself in blind review. I feel like doing that hurts more than just getting it wrong outright.

RRE is my nemesis.

STOP IT RIGHT NOW!! Come on, you can do this! We can do this!

So looking at the analysis of the results, regarding the percentage of the answers chosen, A has 47% & D has 43%. How would this affect the scoring of this question?

Praying SO HARD that this type of question is not on my test.

Finally got the question right on the first go then second-guessed myself on blind review. Woo this section is giving me trouble.

I only got the first question right. Smh, it's not clicking for me.

I'm not doing well in this section guys...

I saw someone say a necessary condition is a "required" while a sufficient condition "guarantees" the result being talked about.

so in order to: "guarantee" that this happens → this act is "required"

and contra: if this act required (isn't required) → I guarantee (can't guarantee) that this will occur.

Does that make sense?

Should I be concerned that I didn't notice choice (F) until he read it? My jaw literally dropped.

Are the writers ok? These examples are starting to get a little weird lol. I mean the ice cream one got dark real fast.

THIS rocked my world. Thank you!

In previous lessons, we were doing the contrapositive of conditional statements, hence flipping and negating. So Orig: A→B to /B→/A. This is about negating the relationship between two concepts in an original statement.

For Q2, I kicked "sale of merchandise" into a domain leaving me with

endanger → restict and the contra: restrict → endanger

Is this not right?

#feedback the indicator "the only" is not on the video's last "to sum up" slide. It's not a big deal because it's written above in the let's review box, but wanted to point it out.

Are there interchangeable word substitutes for "sufficiency" and "necessity"? Those words are tripping me up for some reason. I saw someone use "require" for necessary and "guarantee" for sufficient. Is that right?

Thanks so much for your two explanations! Very helpful!

Using puppies as an example of "animals you hate" was crazy lol