It's easier to learn the 3 or 4 valid inferences that can be made with regards to some/most relationships. For every other relationship with some/most you can't draw inferences, so put them out of your mind.

For LSAT purposes you don't need to know anything beyond memorizing those inferences, but if you're like me you'll want to understand the reasoning. When I'm not sure whether I can draw a particular inference I try to create an instance where that inference is not necessarily true. It only takes one counterexample to prove an inference is invalid.

Try to think about the elements in terms of potential set sizes of indivisible elements. In this case let's assign the following set sizes: A contains 1, B contains 100, and C contains 1. So with the relationship A-->B some C, we have one [A] that is also a [B] where 99 [B] have no overlap with[A]. We also have one [B] that is also a [C] where 99 have [B] have no overlap with [C]. Who's so say that the one [B] assigned to [C] happened to be the [AB] element?

So can you see the problem with saying all of the one [A] that we have is necessarily a [C]? We just don't know enough about the probabilities of assignment, so A does not necessarily imply C. We can even go a level deeper and say the elements are randomly assigned amongst the sets. Then we can say there is a 1% chance that all A-->C, so 99% of the time [A] will not imply [C]. We still can't draw the inference that you mentioned, as 99% of the time it would be incorrect.

I really looked at the wording for this, and if you take tense into account AC C becomes fuzzy. The general fact referenced was written in the tense, "Something has happened". It's in the wrong tense. Effectively AC C says the general fact(something has happened) will change.

Dude, this isn't back to the future, that "something" has already happened.

AC C would be correct if they changed the tense to "Something will keep happening".

I usually don't get super anal with this stuff, but we're being asked to make subtle distinctions so I did.

Am I dumb? #help

I've noticed this as well. When I'm in that zone I go -0 to -2. Super hard to read slowly and deliberately though. Any tips to get in that zone? I've tried to force myself to read slowly, but even then I still end up doing the ADD thing and "reading" without actually reading.

Seconding himchanjung in that you should figure out which passage type is giving you the most difficulty. I majored in science so I blaze through the science passages, but I used to struggle in the humanities. Reading them felt like eating a bowl of bland oatmeal; kind of boring so it takes forever to eat(no offense to you oatmeal fanatics). But your oatmeal doesn't have to be boring. It's your kitchen and you are the chef.

let's look at a couple ways to make your limp oatmeal more colorful and palatable.

In my case I focused on reading more humanities material both on the LSAT and in real life. I casually read humanities topics from news articles, Reddit posts, and even my old history textbook. This allowed me to pick up on jargon and related concepts much faster. Upon seeing such concepts in the passage I had already done the mental work of understanding them. This saved precious time and mental effort.

An example to demonstrate:

In a science passage the concept of entropy came up. Having already invested a portion of my undergraduate studies in thermodynamics I immediately thought, "Oh cool entropy, I know a bit about that. Let's see how they tie this in to the rest of the text", as opposed to thinking "Jesus what is this entropy stuff? God I hope the author explains this more because I'm lost". No panic rereading the sentence five times in confusion, instead I just barreled through the rest of the text. Concept familiarity makes the passage easier and more interesting, if not enjoyable(I swear I'm not a psychopath).

You need to get interested, or at least feign an interest. When you approach the text from a frame of curiosity you not only focus more, but also engage with it on a new level. It's this engagement with the text that allows you to banter with it and challenge it. In your head you start asking the author questions like,"Well why would you think that?" or "That seems like a bold claim, got any proof?" or even, "Wow, this guy just hates his opponents, why is that?". You start to think critically, you know, like a lawyer.

I should mention you don't necessarily need to spend most of your time on the text. Some find it helps to focus their attention on the passage, others read just to get the gist while focusing on the core elements. Try both approaches. Experiment, see what works best for you. Good luck!

Doesn't the word "mistake" imply "wrong"?

The correct AC says the argument "mistakes" Market share etc. It could be that this was a mistaken conclusion, or maybe not. When total market size is equal in before and after, total sales would actually be halfed, in which case the author would be correct.

The answer choice could have said "overlooks the possibility that the total market size increased substantially". This was roughly what I was looking for since the author drew conclusions without enough data. He wasn't necessarily wrong in his conclusion though.

In any case the question stem was asking what the mistake in reasoning structure was; AC[A] describes this. The question stem didn't actually imply the conclusion was incorrect, just the reasoning.

This was a distinction that caught me on my second time with this test. Figured I would share for anyone who got tripped up by this wording as well.

Pick a section you did really well on or enjoyed and do it again. Don't worry about your performance, it will probably suck and that's fine. The goal is to get the ball rolling. Once you break that inertia you'll find yourself 10x more engaged and focused.

After this I suggest doing each type of section once to refamiliarize yourself, then take a full length PT. Use this test to inform your weaknesses. Once you know them it's up to you to personalize your study plan. I don't know where you are in your progress, but I recommend completing all of LG core curriculum on 7SAGE, Loophole for LR, and 7SAGE for RC. You don't have to complete the RC curriculum, but make sure you understand the fundamentals. Once you've done that just grind PTs, do your Blind review, Foolproof games you messed up on, and use 7Sage analytics to target your weak points.

For Example: Say you've taken 5 PTs and 7SAGE analytics is telling you you're messing up on weaken. First you make sure you understand the fundamentals of weaken, then create problem sets with tons of weaken questions.

You sound overwhelmed, so realize--more does not equal better. Thirty minutes of quality study time beats 4 Hours of unfocused skimming around. You don't necessarily have to put in a huge amount of time, but you need to make sure the time you do put in counts and you're using a solid plan.

Don't worry about this yet though; just take a single section. Now get out of here and get started :)

[E] says Greater # Deer=Greater forces that can cause death. An inference of this would be Less Deer=Less Forces that can cause dying. So in the past there was less of a negative pressure force on the deer population, in this case "famine and disease" than there is today.

This does make [E] slighter more attractive than framed by J.Y. but we have to make the assumption that the initial rate of population growth back in the 60's was already positive DUE to the population being comparatively low. In other words we would have to assume the deer population in the 60s had a NET positive growth due to less pressure from a negative growth factor. All other factors held constant, this would necessarily mean the population would grow, albeit asymptotically. And we also have to assume that this growth would be enough to call it a "dramatic increase".

I thought I was clever picking [E] by tying in some Differential Equations knowledge. I think it's reasonable to leave out some math assumptions and just pick the AC with the least problems lol.

I see two ways to approach this problem, and I think that's why we see the split between AC[A] and AC[C]. The approach that leads to AC[A] uses heavier reliance on conditional logic, and AC[C] relies more on interpreting the ideas.

This was my approach that lead me to AC[C]:

Terry's statements can be viewed as a suggestion for a third approach that would solve both issues described by Jordan. Terry's statements imply that all businesses would simultaneously invest in "sound ecological practices", thus solving the market share issue. Also, since all businesses would be investing in ecological practices this also reduces the air pollution problem, although not explicitly stated. AC[C] directly mirrors this by showing two scenarios that each generate a problem with taxes, which are then reconciled in an alternative scenario set forth by the second speaker.

I've seen LSAT require both approaches for the correct answer choice, but In this case the question stem explicitly states that the correct AC is to follow the closest "logical relationship". Since [A] follows a closer logical relationship this makes [A] correct. If it hadn't specified the "logical relationship" part I think AC[C] would have been a valid contender.

Thoughts? #help

I hesitated on Answer A because it seems to provide unnecessary information. We just needed the school systems that had the best scores on the test to provide the best schools systems for any other country.

Answer A includes schools who's systems work well, which also implies including school systems that work best. Am I missing something here? The answer seems to expand the domain for schools from only the best systems to systems that work well. Seems beyond what is necessary.

#help (Added by Admin)

Don't mention you were fired and don't address it unless you have to.

edit: I don't know if I missed the part where you said the explicitly asked for a reason or you edited your comment. I think the powerscore podcast discusses this in the addendum episode. I'd go check it out, I think I remember it being in the near the middle of their discussion, but skim through it till you hear them talking about employment.