For question 15.), I believe Ricks would agree that the “historical scholarship...absolves plagiarists of their actions” which is why he doesn’t believe in the Post-Modernist approach.

It’s not so much that Ricks agrees with the approach (as J.Y. interprets it as), but rather Ricks agrees with D.) in that D.) explains why the historical approach is at fault.

I backed off of LR once I knew I had that section down. I think I'm around the same 2-3 wrong in that section at this point.

Maybe you're over analyzing? I know that my performance improved with speed, surprisingly. If I get too analytic I fixate on one question, which slows me down and probably hurts my performance on subsequent questions.

This advice isn't consistent with formulaic methods of learning, but try going with your gut on this section during some PTs. On some level of consciousness you understand the LR section, so see if your performance could improve with a more intuitive approach.

Alternatively, maybe the Analytics can point to certain LR problems that you're getting wrong? Try brushing up on the logic behind those types of LR questions.

I'm taking the June LSAT too! Good luck!

Oh thanks so much for saying that! It took some work to figure out the streaming gear and software. The main point of this is to keep me (and hopefully whoever watches) accountable! So glad you said that!

@ecoughlin16529 said:

@ecoughlin16529 What is your schedule for doing these and out of curiosity what are you working on!

Hi! As of now there’s no specific hourly schedule, but I do aim to do these M - F. Keep an eye out on these forums, or subscribe to my YouTube channel for an alert when I go live!

I’m working on Logic Games btw!

Cheers

@hjkim20304 said:

I am interested!!!

Great! I just posted the link for today’s live YouTube session

@jacksonjulien138 said:

I was trying to join you but it did not work.

Oh no! It seems that you may have to join outside of the 7 Sage app. Thanks for bringing this to my attention! I will be sure to paste the link in my future posts!

@jacksonjulien138 said:

@jacksonjulien138 said:

Are you still online.

I sure am!

Stopping my stream now! If you watched at any point, thanks for joining!

@jacksonjulien138 said:

Are you still online.

I sure am!

@rnsaad321324 said:

Would love to join you! Just finished the core curriculum and starting to do practice tests and reading Loopholes in LSAT :)

I keep hearing about this Loopholes book! Let me know how it is!

@dang159553 said:

Missed your stream :( do you have a stream schedule?

Hey @dang159553 I am planning to be more consistent with the times! As of now, I’m aiming for a Monday - Friday stream once a day. Life is so complicated sometimes! Things pop up and I can’t reliably set a schedule now. I’ll be posting in the forums each day that I start my stream, so keep an eye out!

Subscribing to the channel should also alert you to when I start a stream!

Best

@philipahn33922 said:

Hey! Good luck on studying! I'm preparing for the January administration too, aiming for 165+

That’s a solid goal, @philipahn33922.ahn33 ! - I’m looking to take the test as early as April and as late as June-ish (whenever they announce the dates around then). I’d love to get my score up to a 165+ !

Against my better judgement I chose E) as the answer even though in the back of my head I had the thought that, “I’m sure sometimes has the same LSAT defined distinction as some being inclusive of all.”

Therefore, sometimes can include always.

If we apply this to Dana, we’d still get an agreement because there are sometimes in which children should be educated based on how they learn best (Sometimes including all of the times for Dana).

If we apply this to Pat, “not always” can still leave sometimes open.

I initially chose D) under timed testing, but changed to B) during blind review. To better understand why D) is correct, I think what needs examining is part of the first sentence of the stimulus (the idea that the mall is part of the local economy [the mall is in the community]), the second sentence of the stimulus, and the wording for answer choice D).

"When a community opens a large shopping mall, it often expects a boost to the local economy..." - Because the mall is in the community, its profits are considered part of that community.

"Yet the increase in the local economy is typically much smaller than the total amount of economic activity that goes on in the mall." - This is a fact and conclusion given to us in the stimulus. This is not something to argue against. So what explains this fact?

"Most of the money spent in a large shopping mall is money that would have been spent elsewhere in the same community had that mall not been built." - Answer choice D) is saying that at least 51% of the money spent in a large shopping mall would have been spent elsewhere in the community had that mall not been built. 51% of money spent at the mall is diverted from the community, this money would have been spent without the mall, so this can't be part of the boost to the economy...

That last italicized part is very important to understanding why this is the correct answer. Why? Because this 51% of spending at the mall is not part of the boost to the local economy. This means at the most, 49% of spending at the mall is the mall's contributing boost to the economy, whereas the other 51%+ is just diverted money that would have been spent without the mall. - This difference in percentages alone is enough to prove that the economic boost is less than the mall's community diverted earnings, BUT we aren't even comparing how much is economic boost (49% or less) versus how much is diverted community funds (51% or more), we're comparing 49% or less to the 100% of economic activity at the mall.

I suppose it’s the fact that if some of these coolest brown dwarfs could destroy lithium, it leaves open the possibility that one could destroy all of its lithium, thereby canceling out the conclusion.

I had the same realization, but I tried to think of an instance in which a necessary assumption question stem could contain “if” and not contain a “required” synonym:

“If the conclusion is true, which of the following assumptions must be?”

That’s actually a good question. I rewatched the explanation a couple of times for B, but I can’t quite wrap my head around what JY is doing... #help

I’m going to try to give all of the reasons why D) is not the correct answer choice:

The question stem asks, as flaw questions typically do, what the most accurate flaw is.

C) Is highly accurate because it captures a scenario that is specifically occurring in the stimulus: The argument is misconstruing the high occurrence of large coffee consumption in the insomniac group with high prevalence of insomnia in a group of large coffee consumers.

D) Is less accurate for a couple of reasons:

- There may be something, as @gioaragon95 explained below, in the order of wording in this answer choice. D) states the “evidence describes only the characteristics of a class of individuals”. Is large amounts of coffee drinking only applicable to extreme insomniacs? We do not know. The better way to have worded this may be “evidence only describes the characteristics of a class of individuals.” In this way, we better understand that the evidence “only describes” versus “describes only” characteristics of a class. - Additionally the characteristic, of being a large consumer of coffee, is not solely applicable to the class of individuals (extreme insomniacs), but is applicable to the individual in question as well (Tom), so this characteristic does not “describe only” the class, but also describes Tom (a reworded statement of my conclusion, yes, just for clarity).

- The stimulus technically only describes one characteristic of extreme insomniacs (that 90% consume large amounts of coffee), so the use of characteristics may technically be inaccurate. Nit picky, yes, but still arguable.

- This may be the author’s method of reasoning (@chaplin_), and may be descriptively accurate, but does not give enough detail to describe where the flaw is. To me, this reasoning is the same as saying, “the author used evidence that describes only the characteristics of extreme insomniacs ⁺ ”. Aaaand? Where is the flaw? Where is the link to flawed reasoning here? We need that reasoning that says that a connection cannot be made from the evidence cited and all we are seeing in answer choice D) is the admission of using this evidence. C) explains the flaw in misinterpreting this evidence ( ⁺ In my opinion, this can’t be the group of “coffee drinkers” as others have stated because the evidence is pertinent to extreme insomniacs not coffee drinkers).

This explanation really got through to me. I was frustrated by this “equivocation” of “religious” that I just wasn’t seeing.

I understood that the person making the argument was flawed in that their experience lead them to believe the music was religious just because they heard it play in a church, but what I didn’t see was the first use of religious meant that the music was intended to be religious.

The latter use of divine showed the the argument’s flaw in confusing that which is religious in genre (Christian Rock) for that which is divinely (religiously) inspired.

I chose B.

Here is why I thought it to be correct:

I’m not sure if it’s an incorrect use of the term “recollection” on my part, but I did feel that “recollection” could mean the stated remembrance of an event. In this case, I felt that the commissioner’s use of “you may recall...” was his statement of the recollection of a previous event minus the outcome of that event; was the jail relocation decision a good decision? What can we make of this “incomplete recollection”?

Here is why I believe it to be wrong:

I guess even if the word “recollection” was used in this case, as I believe it is used colloquially, we couldn’t determine whether this recollection was or wasn’t incomplete. The recollection also pertained to the audience the commissioner is addressing, and is not his own recollection. Additionally, there wasn’t really a conclusion drawn about the association’s recommendations (It doesn’t say that in general, the association’s recommendations are right or not).

One of Merriam Webster’s definitions of agree:

“to consent to as a course of action” - This is how I interpreted “agree” as used in this problem. The commissioner may or may not fully understand and “agree” with the proposal if he did understand it in its entirety, but he does “agree” (consent) to the actions suggested by the neighborhood association.