I think you have the date wrong. This Saturday is the 22nd not 27th.

@andaiyehall121 https://discord.com/invite/ekGwWsJN

Here is a link - it's not only limited to a readying study group.

interested

I would highly recommend it. The reading you would do on the LSAT and on other material is different and those lessons help a ton.

I forgot to mention that words like "are" are not automatically the predicate. For example

Students who are in the library at 5 am study harder than most of their peers.

I have read some of the comments and I understand a lot of the confusion that people are having. NGL through out my LSAT studies, I have seen how stubbornly annoying English can be. This is just how I understand predicates to be so take everything I say with a huge grain of salt. Feel free to correct me.

The way I understand predicate to be is that it the main word that is connecting the main subject to he main action. verb, or being of the subject. So for example it can be short as:

"I ran," "Kyle talked" or "dogs bark."

Unfortunately, the LSATs and the reading matter if were are to practice law is not that easy. Don't automatically assume that because you see a verb it is the predicate because it can also be modifying the subject. Additionally, predicates can be words like "has, is, are, were." I words that are similar "to being" if that makes sense. From my understanding, these are terms that are present-tense.

Here is the definition of present tense: the tense of a verb that expresses action or state in the present time and is used of what occurs or is true at the time of speaking and of what is habitual or characteristic or is always or necessarily true, that is sometimes used to refer to action in the past, and that is sometimes used for future events (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/present%20tense)

Below are some examples of using words like "is" and "are" as predicates to show how they can be the predicate.

.

the kids laughing unstoppable are going to love the movie.

The dad running with the stroller is tall

the kids playing basketball on the green court were ranked as some of the best players in the state.

As for 14.2, the way I understand the predicate to be are words that connect the subject and the main action, thing or verb being said about the subject. I believe the reason why "were" is the predicate instead of rescue is that it is not the main connector. so for example we can change he sentence to a different predicate topic.

The puppies abandoned in the rain were barking all night

The puppies abandoned in the rain were playing in the puddles.

Don't automatically assume that because you see a verb it is the predicate because it can also be modifying the subject. Additionally, predicates can be words like "has, is, are, were." I would words that are similar "to being" if that makes sense.

the kids laughing unstoppable are going to love the movie.

The dad running with the stroller is tall

the kids playing basketball on the green court were ranked as some of the best players in the state.

Because the sentence is not trying to tell you what journalism provides. Rather the word provide is modifying journalism since the subject is not about all types of journalism. The word that connects what action the subject is taking or doing is the second "is." After the second "is," we are told "good journalism."

What makes good journalism? One that provides accurate information on a subject about which there is considerable interest.

The way I try to break it down is as follows

"Any journalism that provides accurate information on a subject about which there is considerable interest is good journalism"

"Any journalism that..." - Okay so we are talking about journalism, but not just any kind since we have "that"

"...provides accurate information..." and any journalism that what? oh okay provides accurate information.

"on a subject about which there is considerable interest..." But its has to be on a subject about which there is considerable interest.

"... is considered good journalism" - what does it do? oh okay it is considered good

disregard the "however" point I made as I now see it seeing used differently.

#feedback

Would some be able to explain why there is no argument in 9.3? I do not think the "However" makes it not an argument as some have suggested here because 1.3 and 1.3 along with maybe a some other examples have "however" in it and the answers say they are arguments.

Additionally, 9.3 is similar to 9.1 and 9.2 in that in the first sentences we learn that a monetary increase is having an effect on a specific group. In the following sentence we are told that such increase has introduced a barrier to the group affected by the monetary increase - on that makes inaccessible. I just do not see how 9.3 is different than from some of the other examples.

@ranalzany1607 I was going over some of the lessons on Inferences/MSS. They have an example here of "will only" if you want to see an example in the lsat in action

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/mbt-lesson-1-pt61-s4-q07/?ss_completed_lesson=23918

@ranalzany1607 you're welcome - best of luck in your studies!

You did not put PT number or which PT it is. So its hard to know which PT you are referencing to.

@ranalzany1607 thanks for your response - but I believe in cases with "only will" it modifies the second part of the sentence. I try to see which clause/sentence "only" is modifying. This would be in all of its uses. However the examples below are ones I try to use for "will only"

Lets take this simple sentence and later translate it to a "will only:"

"_If you play for the Lakers, you are in the NBA_."

Being in the NBA is something that is necessary to be in the Lakers.

To translate it to a "will only"

_You will only play for the Lakers if you are in the NBA_.

_You will only play for the Laker when you are in the NBA._

What helps me is knowing that not every NBA player plays for the Lakers, Almost a majority of them play for a different team. So seeing which one is the subset and which one is the superset makes it easier with this example. It cannot be that every NBA player is in the Lakers, so it has be If Lakers then NBA. With this example, it made it easier for me to understand a bit more how "will only" works.

Regarding the tutoring example above that was taken from the lessons, asking who will only be tutored helped.

High school teachers who teach AP courses will only tutor students they believe to be in danger of failing

In this example, we see that there are two conditions. The first one is tutoring and the second one is "those they believe to be in danger of failing." We might not be able to use the same tactic as the NBA one since we do not know the numbers but which one makes more sense?

if in danger of failing then being tutored

or

If being tutored then in danger of failing.

What I also do is ask what is the only referring to? In the case of " will only tutor" you can ask well who are they only tutoring? it would be students that are in danger of failing.

I guess you can also ask "who will the tutoring be only applied to?" to break only away from will.

This is how I was able to make some sense of it. I am not 100% sure if it right but if anyone wants to correct me or improve upon it I will greatly appreciate it.

I think you are confused with:

A-->B--->C

This would make it : A+B -->C

The one you wrote is A--> B and C. If A happens than so does B and C. There is nothing in your formula that indicates that B triggers C. It could be the case that B happens but not C if we look at the CP - which is if not B or C than not A.

Thank you for sharing your story. I have been studying for over a year now and haven't felt like I have move forward but this gives me some hope!

What made it confusing for me was the negatives and the use of had. But once I saw that "had" kind of worked like "if" in these cases it became a bit easier to solve.

I am not fully in your shoes but I have been studying for this exam for over a year. I have not been studying in the best manner but can empathize with your want to get this exam over with so you get your law school started. I live in Canada, so we have to apply for law school between November and the beginning for next year - I believe. If I apply this cycle and get in, then I would be starting law school in September 2025.

I am 28 and have had a lot of ups and downs in my personal live during the time I have been studying for this exam. It has been a time of a lot of personal growth and growing pains associated with it. I want to go into law for so many reasons. The money, some personal goals, and several others. I have spent so many hours studying but just feel like time passing is passing me by. and I cannot lie there is the seeds of doubt in my mind of many kind during this process many that still remain to this day. I do not know if this a similar stress that you are currently feeling. But we also got to be positive that regardless of the outcome things will be alright. It does not say anything about who we are. During this time I have been going to therapy and one of the things I am trying to learn is that we have plenty of time. Many people in their 30s, 40s and 50s are going to law school.

You might get into law school or you might not but I hope you do. At least you are trying. At least you have taken the exam while many have not.

I think if LG is your weakest, its not the worst idea to wait till 2025 to do your law school since you have only 2 more exams. It could take the stress away. It also helps to vent so if you ever wanna went my DMs are open.

#help

I am reviewing these and was wondering if for number 18 we could put more things up the domain.

"Any journalism that provides accurate information on a subject about which there is considerable interest is good journalism."

To me it seems like there are three sufficient conditions

1. It has to be journalism

2. it needs to be accurate information

3. there needs to be considerable interest

So since it states that if is accurate information, and if it is a subject on which there is considerable interest, under the domain of the journalism it is sufficient to say that it is good journalism.

Hypothetically, if there was no considerable interest, then it we could not tell if it was good journalism or not.

I am confused because I am under the impression that we are using the conditional rules from the previous lesson about the right to keep a pet. So since in that phrase, we are told that if those conditions are met, you will get to keep the pet. However, no such thing was stated in the premise of the Percy example. Since it was never mentioned in the premise, is that why the conclusion is invalid?

Are we not supposed to use the information for the previous example?

I would assume it does because you have no way of linking the profile to the patient where as with the fMRI, you can has enough info to create a recognizable image of their face. This would be one circumstance where fMRI breach their privacy and the genetic profile would not

Hey Joey, the stimulus is those small paragraphs in the LR section. It the info we are given and then based on the stem question, we are given a certain task. I hope this helps answer your question