great explanation of D! I didn't pick D because I thought I cannot straight up deny a causation and/or correlation, but your example really helped me comprehend why D won't work.

thank you all!! very interesting !!!

don't worry, i was in your situation before. I think you can get a good score untimed, that shows your logic is good but you just need to train your brain to think faster. I think you're doing the right thing right now, just be patient because studying for the LSAT is a timely process. Progress will come slowly but surely! Don't be depressed, i understand how that feels but please don't let your mindset set you back. If you get 170+ consistently untimed id suggest to speed drill each section. U will see improvements soon, and once you see the questions over and over again, speed will come naturally. force your brain to think faster, because it seems like you can score well without the pressure and timing. do a little a day, and build up endurance. Don't listen to your lawyer friend, I think everyone is different when it comes to standardized test. The score itself is not a sole indicator of whether if you can be a good lawyer or now. Just try your best, and good luck!

interesting question, although I didn't think mapping this question was necessary to reach answer C, and that may actually confuse some people. I just thought about it, and C just made sense, here's my take on the answer choices, hope it helps

A. doesn't matter whether if S believed his cousin want to be informed or not, this doesn't necessarily dictate the outcome nor his decision, so it's wrong.

B. Even if someone told S's cousin about factory closing, this wouldn't affect the conclusion nor support in any way. S still withheld info., and B doesn't have to be true

C. This has to be true, if S didn't believe factory would be closing, then why would he do what the question stimulus said? Then everything would fall apart and not make sense. Whenever I do NA questions, I think of can I bridge this, which is a mechanical way of pursuing the question. This question doesn't seem like a bridging question, so I'd ask myself, if this answer isn't there, would it matter? If not, I move on, if this answer totally fills in the gap, and makes the conclusion solid, then it's prob the answer.

D. Not SA, and doesn't pertain to the question whether if he lied or not, S withheld the info, no need to insert additional details here

E. Out of scope, who cares about S's gains.

In conclusion, lots of LSAT LR questions are similar. They test structure, logic, connection, and see if one can relate all these together. For example, what needs to be true? (MSS, MBT, SA, NA... just different ways of answering it)

mannnn i picked B but then i thought maybe that MAY contribute to profits increasing because they may have eliminated a possible profit decreasing problem..but that just sounds stupid now so i picked A and changed my answer but i totally thought about what JY explained and thought to myself ok you are probably assuming too much.

just because household cleaning products are found in landfills does not indicate that they may be damaging to human health. therefore, the underlying assumption is that there are bacteria that degrade household products because that would produce vapor that are toxic/unhealthy for human

doing this to solidify my understanding :p thanks JY!

We need es → 3+ to complete the argument or to allow the argument to make sense. However, the argument/q stem proceeds by adding 3+ → comfy living. B points out that we don't need the 3+, which is also saying that we are negating the sufficient 3+ here so that comfy living isn't necessary anymore. the answer choice didn't point out that es → 3+ to make it valid, but it did just point out the problem

to make this question explanation more simple to understand, i broke the question stem down like this, and just compare...

read the stimulus, and i break it down as this: people used to do A (slept less than 6 hrs) then start to do B (sleep 8 or + hrs) had X result (felt less anxious). Therefore, most people who did A can achieve X by doing B

Why is A right?

Let's parallel this with our stimulus:

when a small company first begins to B (ad on the internet), financial situation improves (X result). Most small companies can improve their X by doing B.

the question stem is most similar, so it leaves out A, sort of, but it is pretty similar.

B is wrong. why? Because it says certain companies never did A (never advertised - this is not similar to our question stem at all) began to X (achieve this result by having improvement) after they started doing B (ad on internet)... after this i just lost interest

C. it must be true...ok lost interest because it's backwards

D. lost interest when i saw "Only if" and just scanned the answer choice, structure isn't similar, not worried about the details

E. lost interest when i read the last part that internet could prob become financially strong...i dont need additional subjective details here

I tried to download them but had some technical difficulties, is there anyway you can email them to me please?? Or where else can I get them??

HMW (handmade wig) → ME (most expensive)

MTMW (made to measure wig) → MP ~ Expensive

HMW → human hair → DC

Conclusion: MTMW → HM

So therefore, MTMW → DC

Link Premise → Conclusion

MTMW → MP ~ Expensive → HMW → Human Hair → DC

A. MP ~ Expensive → HM

B. HM → ME (just premise, doesn't do the sufficient assumption job)

C. HM → DC (tricky, but this just states the premise, and doesn't do what the question is asking you to link up)

D. HM → MP ~ Expensive (sufficiency and necessity confusion, it's backwards, it is wrong)

E. DC → HM (same error as D)

would SI some RL also be correct?

IF → SI

SI → RL

therefore IF → RL

But wouldn't it also be correct if SI some RL due to lawgic lesson?

i think C isn't right is not because of the keyword many. Many indicates 2 to max, and in the stimulus it says many, and in answer choice C, it says 2, so that matches, and also C says that none of the 2 reviews (so no reviewers) woulld hope Lo would write a sequel, we need the second part to say that so the next reviewer in the future or next week wouldn't hope Lo would write a sequel. But instead, C says that the review in the sunday's paper would express hope...so subject doesn't match.

lOl

i didn't arrive to answer choice C by JY's mapping, although we were similar up until the inadequate part.. im not sure whether if I guessed it right or if what i did also works.

My mapping:

CU (cease to use) → A

A → WEPD (withdrawal causes extreme psychological difficulty)

i combined the 2 and got:

WEPD → A

CU → A

Therefore, some relationship between CU and WEPD which is what C states.

can u post the question here so i can attempt to read it and explain it ? i cannot find this problem, thanks!

interesting question! i came to answer c by lawgic mapping and trying to understand what the question is saying. a tip would be to try to be very interested in every single q stimulus, like you're reading a tip or truth of the day to learn something new, and in turn, try to solve the problem inherent in the problem...eh that may be silly on my part but here's my interpretation on this problem.

1st sentence states that whoever murdered J is in the office on the day of murder, and tells us both J and S were there. Note, this doesn't rule out that no one else was there...keep that in mind.

Then lawgic comes in...

H → f or ft

S → f or ft

police found ft but f , since not H, must be S.

What police found is just satisfying the necessary condition of H and S, but the crucial factor is that, why does it HAVE to be S? The assumption here to make conclusion valid must be that S and H were the ONLY people at the office... process of elimination.

A. doesn't help the argument at all to draw proper conclusion. Just because police found the ft just because it's there, does it help us to affirm that it is H or S or someone else? we don't know

B. Sure, even if this were true, but were there others in J's office that day?

C. this confirms our assumption, and also by process of elimination with lawgic, it must be S. so that's the right answer

D. Same reasoning as B

E. same reasoning as B and D. This doesn't conclude any S must be the killer.

interesting. besides the percentage vs # of doctors actually surveyed, i thought of another flaw which is that the advertisement assumes each consumer's skin needs may be the same.

@ that's awesome, please feel free to message me any questions you feel are unique, interesting to go over, or questions. I think that would help us both to solidify our knowledge and logic

@ @ thanks for the LSAT Trainer suggestion. I am going to try that with 7sage, because 7sage is a great tool too. i noticed that they have a 13 or 8 week trainer schedule. I am aiming to take the June LSAT, so it's a little under 13 weeks away ... i noticed this schedule (see link below) contains LSAT lessons that i may or may not need. what would you recommend me to do to customize this schedule to tailor my needs? i am doing well on LG, but need improvements on LR and RC.

http://www.thelsattrainer.com/assets/twelveweektrainerstudyscheduleexams52-712.pdf

I also try to take 1 LSAT a week (full time job gets in the way) and BR, additional drills ... thanks!!!

@ thank you! i sent you a request via email after i clicked on that link

@ that is a good point! I naturally anticipate and look for a flaw while iam reading, before I go to the answer choices. depending on the q stimulus, i can sometimes anticipate a few flaws to none. This would determine whether if I mess up on the answer choices :p what about you?? How do you approach flaw questions

dang now that i see it, the word "incompatible" is just not right for answer choice D.

i have a prescription, and my doctor advised me to not take it often, and space out the dosage. i personally find that helpful compared to taking it daily. I'd suggest to talk to you doctor and it depends on your dosage/mg

thanks! I hope the link above works for you too if you'd like to check out the problems through there

thinking about it, i think i was trying too hard by trying to disprove answer B. this is not a MBT question, nor is this logic game... i just need an answer that would make the premise and conclusion more valid...sufficient assumption. Anyone agree with this? Or add some more insights? Thanks!