I would agree with you that in the heat of the moment, the difference is difficult to parse out. Yet, on a second review, the differences are clearly seen, especially in the "Quantatative" vs. "Qualatative" difference J.Y. points out.

It helps to remember that much of logical reasoning is about the implications that flow out of the stated propositions, in contrast to the more elementary grammatical understanding.

Rather than fool proofing all at once, spread out your practice over an extended period of time (say, a week). And drill similar game types; in they end, they really are essentially the same.

Two thumbs up to the step-by-step/argument-by-argument.

It really reveals the wrong answer choices for the abominations they are (and how the test makers are trying to get us to falsely equate ideas; hence, the mistake I made with B)

One thing that has been a huge help for me is thinking in terms of "coloring in" the details of the premise in order to strengthen the support in between the premise and conclusion. Just at face value, all LR arguments are relatively short;(I think the longest question I've seen was seven sentences on an early PT?) hence, there almost has to be other details out there that will give it more support. In a sense, be aware that the situation given is not the entire story. There are still many brave new worlds of premises and background information that await to to be explored and conquered (A vague cheesy way or approaching the ACs; forgive me). ><

Practically speaking, take note of any new words or concepts that appear in the premise or conclusion, which tend to indicate subtle scope shifts that can help you see the "gap" that needs to be strengthened.

'Hope that helps!

This is a great example of how the LSAT requires us to focus on the "How?" as well as the "What?" Looking back, I got this question wrong precisely because I allowed myself to become absorbed in the more trivial semantic issues, rather than concentrating on how each arguer attempts to justify his/ her conclusion.

Could we balance out the interpretation of AC (B) by giving a bit more weight to "some" as a qualifier?

"Some" seems to sizzle out the restrictiveness of the sentence into a more general form (contrasting a reading of the AC with without the "some"

i.e. "What are ... Bearden's most significant contributions to art?" The answer to this question would be tougher to justify with the information given.

AC (B) is supported by the overall main paint in Paragraph 1, the subpoint in the latter half of Paragraph 4 as well as by the author's unabashedly buoyant tone toward Bearden, or to quote J.Y. "I want to have Bearden's babies" ><

I would advise you to avoid seeing causation logic as relevant "only" for strengthening and weakening question types. One of the aspects of 7sage (as well as the LSAT Trainer) that sets it apart from other prep companies is that it emphasizes how all LR questions are fundamentally testing the same concepts just in a slightly different light.

Have you seen this lesson yet at the end of the Point at Issue lessons?

Keep telling yourself that there are four irrelevant ACs and one relevant correct AC. The litmus test will be whether the AC gets "in-between" the premise and the conclusion of the argument.

Active reading and blind review, please! Thank you so much for hosting this!

The testmakers sure do love testing the double negatives...

I've found that identifying the premises and the conclusion are the first step (I know that seems so obvious, but in the heat of the moment, it might not be). And from then on treat it like a puzzle, because it essentially is a puzzle, or a matching game per se.

I've also noticed that for questions where the conclusion contains a new element, such as "maintain quality" in this question, that that portion MUST be in the correct answer choice.

'Appreciate that. Looking back, this is a good example of how on the LSAT, you got to see the forest and the trees. 'Seems as though I got so caught up in the details that language that I forgot to just read and understand the argument at face value.

Go to Harvard, Columbia, school-of-your-choice's law reviews, print out some of their articles, and do the Memory Method with them! This has helped me! Law is also my worst RC subject

The two embedded "without"s in the premise and conclusion really threw me off while I was trying to diagram. Should I take those "without"s into account? Or am I thinking too hard here?

As I was reading this, three phrases stuck out:

1. "exlusive source of funding"

2. "solely be"

3. "One of the other ... necessary"

Please correct me if I am wrong, but this seems like a biconditional, specifically, the "always apart, never together" type. Because you need at least one (Govt or Corp.) but you cannot have both of them (emphasized by the "exclusive and "solely").

I also want to note how in the "or" lessons, J.Y. spoke of how if the "or" is going to be an "exclusive or", LSAC will make sure to emphasize that it is such; that's precisely what we get with the three phrases listed above.

Once you grasp this, A, B, C, and E all pop out as uncertain,while D is undoubtable.

This question is a good example of how in MBT, and LR in general, you have to see the forest AND the trees. If you were so caught up in trying to diagram from the get-go, you probably missed this observation. Gotta be flexible, yo.

In summary, getting this question correct hinges on a mastery of "or" and recognizing biconditionals.

I really do believe that improving your raw reading ability plays a larger role than we would like to think in terms of improving our RC scores. Don't just start reading dense material, but read to memorize structure and the underlying interaction within the passages viewpoints/evidence/etc. JY's memory method is a great place to start. Make it a habit. Every day!

This provides some great motivation and perspective. Thank you. All the best in your first year of law school!

What I know about LSAT prep would tell me 10 hours is not enough weekly study time.

But if you decide to still take it in June, focus on the easiest way to increase your score. Which would probably be mastering LGs and aiming for 100% on the first 10-12 questions on the LR sections.

@kraftphillip666.phillip I agree 100% with what you said about reading inactively as being a huge time-sucker. One of the goals I set for myself when reading is trying to discipline myself to reading the stimulus just once and simply referring to it after, if that need be.

I'm also pretty sure that the more you dwell on a question, the more likely you are to get in wrong.

I don't want to be "that guy" who points out spelling, but shouldn't it be "affect" in AC 'A'? "Effect" is a noun, while "affect" is a verb.

If I'm correct, any chances LSAC will spot me 2 or 3 points on test day? Maybe for those parallel flaw questions? (insert sarcasm here)

The "never" definitely does stick out, looking back at it. Can't get too bogged down in the details/lawgic and forget to just try to understand what the argument is saying straight up.

I relate with all four. More so, I have begun to see how illogical I can be as well as how illogical most arguments are (i.e. the ones we are used to hearing on a everyday basis via advertisements, disputes between friends, etc.). Humbling, for sure.

Anyone else get jealous seeing how easy J.Y. makes it look?

Would this be considered one of those "curvebrearker" questions? For one, you have complicated logic, and then, of course, the correct answer is in the contrapositive form.

I got thrown off by the "for this" in the second sentence; I made the mistake of thinking that it referred to the sentence's logic as a whole instead of the NC i.e. "mine the full implications..."

Perhaps you are slightly misreading the question? I.e. "the * views..." I fell for the trap answer of D, "necessary"

I think the key is to develop a full contextual mindset as J.Y. suggests, as in asking how everything in the passage bumps against one another. Or, what is otherwise known to many LSAT conquerors as "reading for structure."

If you bump P2 and P3, i.e. Marshall's legal tactics, we can see that the Test Case Strategy lies under the umbrella of Marshall's "innovative" techniques. Which is pretty much equivalent to "unprecendented."

Possible? Absolutely. Will it take great determination, planning, self-discipline, and efficient studying on your part? Most likely more so than ever before in your academic endeavors.

Did anyone else find this passage particularly challenging? Last passage of the section, 7 questions, difficult wording in the ACs.

I think our best hope would be to prephrase when you can and have a good structural grasp of the passage. I know I'm preaching to the choir, here. Perhaps it just shows that fundamentals really are that important when it comes to the LSAT.