okay thanks so much

I'm having trouble understanding answer choice D. I'm really bad with math, so that might be the reason I can't wrap my head around how this is the correct answer. I eliminated answer choice D because of the wording "does not increase the amount customers spend to an amount grater than they would spend..." My understanding of this phrasing was that if the manufactures' suggested retail price for a designer bag is $1,000, then the credit card bonus program cannot total to $1000.01 (or higher) once shipping is accounted for. However, to me this still leaves open the possibility that this designer bag can end up costing exactly $1,000 through the credit card program. If this is the case, the credit card holder isn't spending less than they would spend if they purchased the same merchandise in a retail store. This answer choice seemed to weaken the argument and therefore I quickly eliminated it. Clearly, I misunderstood something along the way. Any help trying to figure out where I went wrong is much appreciated:) #help

I think I understand what J.Y. means by saying that D is correct because it focuses on the principle of covering a subject matter in depth. However, the stimulus also indicates that the thing that needs to be covered in depth is the "basic subject matter." I ended up eliminating answer choice D because I didnt think that it addressed that part of the stimulus. How do we know that those two greek tragedies that you're reading are part of the "basic subject matter"? I would really appreciate some clarification #help

Our conclusion in the stimulus talks about it being "unlikely" for something to happen and then in answer choice "D" our conclusion is more strong in that it says that a certain situation will "never" happen. Did misunderstand the meaning of these words? Or is just something that isn't relevant in parallel questions? #help

Came back to this question after a few weeks and I still fell for A:(

The sentence that reads, "takes longer than this only when it is damaged in transit," is preventing me from fully understanding why answer choice D is correct. Couldn't it be that the mail was damaged rather than being incorrectly addressed, and that's why it's arriving in three days? #help

The takeaway is that the baby white pine trees and the mature white pine trees CANNOT exist in the forest at the same time. Is this what we should have pieced together in order to get to the correct answer? #help

So when it says, "exaggeration of such failings often forms the basis for successful comedy," it's referring to comedians being able to form successful skits based on their own personal failings? I thought the successful skits were being formed from the audiences' personal failings?? I interpreted as it being comedians poking fun of their own audience and thus went with answer choice A. Any clarification on this is more than welcomed #help

@ said:

@ said:

The problem is that you treated it as an in/out, but then incorrectly captured the rule.

If you're going to treat it as an in/out, then what that rule says is

Not both (F,N) in and Not Both (F,N) out. You can then express that with a bi conditional. Alternately, you can just draw them together and put a slash on that box. That should make it clear to you that they don't go together (whether they're in or out).

Formally what this rule says:

(F or N) and not (F and N) which reduces to F xor N

Hmm okay I kind of see @. So, another question I have then is:

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/grouping-game-1-game-board-setup/

For this grouping game, one of the rules is "V cannot be added to the same class as Z" which JY wrote as a "not both" rule. V --> /Z

For the in/out game about the appetizer and main dish, the rule was "F is not included in the same recipe as N" and JY wrote it as a bi-conditional. F (--) /N

Those two rules sound very similar in their restrictions and yet have a different way of being drawn. What is the difference here that I'm missing/how am I able to obviously & quickly detect that difference? Is it just because of the fact that they are in/out vs. grouping?

I have been struggling with the same thing! Okay, so I've read through the explanations below, but it's still not really making sense for me. So, is it just because of the fact that there are in/out games vs. grouping?????

I am sure it will be though. So many people had issues with that last game

Does the fact that the premise talks about "temporal order" and then the conclusion talks about "temporal dimension," play a role in the flaw? #help

yea me too tbh

I guessed on like 3 questions LMAO

I knew how to set it up but then when I figured it out I ran out of time :)))

pretty sure they will curve that though

@ said:

@ said:

I had LG, RC, and LR

The logic games were normal. The last game I guessed on some because I took a while to figure out how it was set up. Games I had were about finances committee, paintings, restaurants, and I cant remember the other one.

RC I had, Black paintings, punishment, science discovery and social media, and the expulsion of some Indian tribes. RC was okay nothing relatively hard.

LR, I had something about people moving non native plans out of habitats, music and gardening, and building trains or a subway.

Pretty sure I have done the LR on this exam on another LSAT's experimental section. Some of the topics seemed a bit familiar but who knows.

Overall It was relatively normal. The only thing I kinda messed up on was the last game in the LG section. Took a while to set it up, but did well on all the other ones. Nothing major.

I got the same test as you and I thought RC was brutal...ugh

Ya the third passage was so long and annoying

I had LG, RC, and LR

The logic games were normal. The last game I guessed on some because I took a while to figure out how it was set up. Games I had were about finances committee, paintings, restaurants, and I cant remember the other one.

RC I had, Black paintings, punishment, science discovery and social media, and the expulsion of some Indian tribes. RC was okay nothing relatively hard.

LR, I had something about people moving non native plans out of habitats, music and gardening, and building trains or a subway.

Pretty sure I have done the LR on this exam on another LSAT's experimental section. Some of the topics seemed a bit familiar but who knows.

Overall It was relatively normal. The only thing I kinda messed up on was the last game in the LG section. Took a while to set it up, but did well on all the other ones. Nothing major.

I found this stimulus to be a little frustrating in the sense that it didn't explicitly give us a conclusion and it had make the assumption that Reade's current popularity is because of her stance on complex voting issues which the public is able to evaluate. I am at the point in my studies when I am scared to make any assumptions. I get that it's not a far fetched assumption to think that Reade is giving us her stance when discussion complex issues, but I was terrified of making that jump. What if Reade wants to discuss a complex issue without giving her opinion?? #help

If we are drawing a bridge isn't that Sufficient Assumption. I have always thought of SA as drawing a bridge, where is my thought process going wrong? #help

I was oblivious to the fact that the conclusion makes reference to the idea that experimentation "on those animals who humans emphasize with" needs to end. The premise they gave us is that all animals are able to feel pain. Wouldn't the missing link have to connect the idea of emphasizing with pain? #help

Required= implies a necessary condition

At 1:32, J.Y. talks about the difference between not (hp achieved -----> high tech) v.

hp achieved --->/high tech. When doing this on my own, I struggled to map out the conclusion because it didn't have any of the conditional logic indicators. The only word that stood out was "depends." The not in front of the parenthesis implies a negation to a statement and the other implies a conditional relationship, right? How do I know when I am looking at a negation v. conditional relationship. Where can I find those lessons? #help

This made no sense during time, but totally clicked under blind review. Petition to make the LSAT untimed.

In regard to left and right, there are two things going on:

1. Do the people purchasing the car drive on the left or right side?

2. Where is the manufacturer placing the steering wheel, on the left or the right side?

Based on the passage, we are explicitly told that in Japan cars are driven on the left side. Meanwhile, in North America cars are driven on the right side.

The conclusion brings in the idea regarding the location of the steering wheel by stating that in order to get closer towards eliminating the trade imbalance, North American manufactures need to produce more cars with right-sided steering wheels.

The assumption being made is that in Japan, there is a high demand for right-sided steering wheels and that because North American manufactures are producing left-side steering wheels, they're putting themselves at a disadvantage in regards to getting rid of the trade imbalance. Am I understanding this correctly?? #help

Im still struggling to understand how answer choice D triggers the conditional relationship from our stimulus. Stimulus:

/benefit recipient →

/worth more than what is expected or customary → /generous

Is it that the negation of /worth more than what is expected or customary also includes that it's worth equal to what one would expect???

#help

Sometime is helps to come back to the question after a day or so.

Thank you!! @ @

I kept answer choice A because I thought that its negated version seemed to attack the conclusion. Negated: "Some birds of pray other than the dwarf masked owl nest in the spiny cactus." If there are other birds that nest on the same nesting grounds, couldn't it be that they take over the nesting grounds and now there aren't enough for the dwarf masked owls(dmo)? Which means the dmos don't have anywhere to go? #help