@JY @everyone

How long did it take everyone to get through Foundations?

I work full time, but feel like it took me much longer than it should have. Also definitely agree that the time estimate for the lessons is very conservative. Did anyone complete all or most of these lessons within the assigned time estimate? If that is what is expected my study approach needs to drastically change.

#feedback #inquiry

I need to quit vaping

What's the expression for hypothesis 4 in lawgic? If no (A →B) is that /A → /B? Is there a A → B (strikethrough of →) ?

"Something about my intuition just will not click with this word "only." ~JY

LMAO. Me too!

I do like this new skill builder format as compared to what it appeared to be based on the comments from months ago, however, I am not sure if 5 quick questions is enough to embed the necessary topics in my mind for a test that's 4 months away #feedback

All dogs like bacon

Most dogs play fetch

Some animals that like bacon play fetch.

J.Y. is a frickin' genius, man. At the end of his explanation for question #2 where he visually drew A and /P as two distinct circles, meaning P is the area encompassed everywhere outside of the /P circle and related that back to one of our first lessons on sets and subsets, I just had to shake my head and laugh. Genius.

If I am in NYC, then I am in the USA

NYC --> USA

Being in the USA is necessary to be in NYC

Being in NYC is sufficient to be in the USA

/USA --> /NYC

Not being in the USA means I am not in NYC

dog bacon

Some dogs like bacon.

bacon dog

Some that like bacon are dogs.

Study plan could be better than just an hours breakdown based on when you take the exam. If there are more comprehensive organizational tools, I'd like to know where they are + see them advertised more so I take advantage of them.

Increase the little blurbs in the corner that give advice.

More LSAT style example questions injected into this lesson to drive home the points.

For question "Injuries that occurred on the slopes of ski resorts made up a smaller percentage of ski-related injuries in 1980 than in 1950," would the thing that we are comparing be the percentage of ski related injuries that occurred on slopes of ski resorts or the smallness of the percentage of ski related injuries that occurred on slopes of ski resorts?

Since the "winner" is 1980, I would think technically we are comparing the smallness of the percentage.

"The raccoons wouldn't stand a chance." LMAO

"Forget this. (crosses out stimulus) Let's go for a walk in the woods."

JY is a literal riot.

Question for all: are you guys reviewing all of the individual breakdown videos or only if you got it wrong? Or just depends how much prep you have already done?

Disney is the strongest argument because it "must be true," through the process of elimination.

The tigers argument is the next strongest because the conclusion is supported by the premise and the claim in the premise is factual, but there is only one claim in this premise and it is less specific (the support is not as airtight as the Disney argument).

The trash bin argument is the weakest because the premises conditionally support the conclusion. The claims in the premises substantiate the conclusion, but do not confirm it; whereas the claim in the premise in the tigers argument confirms the conclusion.

Does anyone else watch the video and read the text below? Do you think it is a waste of time or reinforcing of the concepts covered? I want to guarantee I learn what is presented, but do not want to spend too much time on any one section, especially the introductory ones. I would appreciate the advice of others. #feedback

LOL, of course I tried to employ the method described in the previous lesson to "save time," not expecting a straightforward stimulus with 5 answer choices that are all seemingly explicitly stated in the stimulus. So I chose C because I saw "thus," only to play the video review and hear the first thing JY says be "the LSAT writers are quite aware of shortcuts"

LSAT writers are a step ahead, but so is JY

Structure:

CTX: "A large company....behavior"

Main conc.: "Still, the trial was worthwhile..."

Major premise / sub-conclusion: "...since it provided..."

Minor premise: "After all, ..."

Answer Choices:

(A) Author says trial was worthwhile, doesn't speculate on if the company had not been convicted.

(B) cookie cutter wrong: premise not conclusion

(C) cookie cutter wrong: context not conclusion

(D) answer: structure: The company's trial (referent = good) was worthwhile

(E) doesn't answer MCC question type at all

JY be like "How do you like me now?" to everybody who commented "HOW IS THIS APPLICABLE??" "need more LSAT examples!" "Where are the videos??

Why "B" is incorrect when looking at just the first 3 sentences as the entire stimulus:

B - description of the support, the premise. Answer choice B says species use camo to avoid predators and that is why fish living around coral reefs do, but the conc / hypo (of a contextual portion of the stimulus, as we will later see) explains why fish that live around coral reefs have brilliant colors to begin with, not why do they use that camo or why they have camo. Specifically the hypo / conc about the phenomenon (again, in just the contextual portion of the stimulus) is about why the fish living around coral reefs have brilliant colors, not why they have camo which happens to be brilliantly colored or why species have camo.

Seeing a lot of comments like "I feel like this is so confusing and not helpful." These lessons are supposed to be confusing and not make sense right away. The moderators go out of their way to mention that at the beginning of each of the videos and in the text. The idea is to get you to think about sentence structure and do it enough so when reading complicated passages you automatically begin to separate clauses, identify conditionals and come to the correct logical conclusions. It isn't supposed to make sense right away, that is why it adds value. If you understood it before, you wouldn't need the class.

drools...