Thank you so much @giuliapines511.pines@alizsafawi42! It was indefinitely postponed purely due to hiring effects of COVID, but I understand how it can raise more questions

I've taken the LSAT 5 times and scored my highest on the 5th time. I suggest retaking to reach the 170s if you want to attend the top 10 schools.

I also missed #25 on the blind review. I recognized the evidence that supports AC C, but the evidence alludes to scientists in general while this alludes to physicists. I suppose that broader to narrow is allowed here. I also didn't equate a desire with a tendency but I see that was too aggressive. However, these two "caveats" should not have been the reason why I chose AC C over AC E.

However, I do understand my choice for AC D. The passage states that we are accustomed to dealing with our mental constructs of objects rather than the primary sense perceptions on which false constructs are based. I inferred that the consideration of mental constructs when it comes to mirrors therefore inhibits an accurate understanding of how primary perceptions function we actually look into a mirror. However, I think that an "understanding of how primary perceptions function" being inhibited by mental constructs was too much of an assumption on my end.

Thank you for this! Good luck everyone 😎

For #22, I said AC D because I thought it was related to the author's point about how we are going against what we are accustomed to. The author says that we can generally assume a reliable equation between perceptions and their associated mental constructs. Therefore, I thought that AC D was talking directly about rejecting this typically reliable requation when it comes to mirrors. However, this is too far off in the paragraph. I should have asked, "Why he is talking about people being accustomed to thinking this way?" People that is exactly why the explanation appeals to people. In the future when a question says "the fact that..." or asks to determine the role of a particular premise, I will definitely look carefully at whether it is a premise serving a conclusion. Asking myself "Why did the author say this?"

Replying 6 years after an original comment is a thrill. In response to @cooljon525, I agree and would like to explain more as I didn't understand at first. If tooth wear resulted in signficiant change in the mammoths on only this island, then we would be like hmmmmm....is that why the teeth are so small? However, the tooth wear applies to all mammoths. So we would have to assume that the effect of tooth wear on this island population would be the same as the effect of tooth wear on other populations. And since we are comparing mammoths at the same adult age, it is irrelevant.

After watching JY's video:

I did not identify the correlation in the premise. There is a correlation between survey use and decreased profits. Why?

So, the big thing that I missed was the fact that maybe the decreased sales caused the businesses to give surveys. Maybe the ones that are doing surveys are suffering and are using it to improve sales and increase profits because they are STRUGGLING. AC C explains this.

Thoughts: Maybe the surveys had something bad that made the customers less likely to buy an item in that store. Maybe the surveys cost way too much money to make that it actually took a huge hit to their profits.

AC A: We don’t know whether any businesses increased their profits. It only says that profits did not decline for them.

AC B: Isn’t this exactly what the first line of the stimulus says?

AC B: So if a business gave out a survey, then they did it in response to complaints by customers. This suggests that the group who did not use surveys had no complaints whereas the group who did use surveys had complaints. That would explain the decrease in profits. I was hesitant on this one because I thought that it would explain that business had lower profits oaverall, not necessary a decline in profits. Also, I wasn’t sure if the businesses who don’t do surveys don’t do the surveys because they had complains or because they don’t do survey in general. I know that’s a lot of thinking but it is what came to mind.

Is it a correlation between more surveys and more complaints?

AC C: We don’t know anything about the results of the surveys influencing the profits, just the surveys being administered.

AC E: This is tempting because if the businesses who gave the surveys didn’t analyze the results of the surveys, then their sales would not improve and their profits would not increase. However, the other businesses who did not use surveys did not decrease in profits while these business did decrease in profits. So it doesn’t answer why they decreased in profits.

I dislike this question so much. A user below mentioned their issue with AC B: How do we know that the people who were already going to buy the product were going to drive? Isn't that asking us to compare the environmental effect of a mailer and a car pollutant? I guess the argument is telling us that air pollutant is worse than the environmental effect of a mailer and we are taking it at its word because we are trying to strengthen it.

On another note, I chose AC E for a reason that JY didn't address. If the percentage of product purchases from direct-mail advertisements is increasing each year, isn't that taking away purchases from stores that would have required air pollutants from cars to get there.

#help

I think I can help you out here. I got it wrong on timed but right on BR. So the hypothesis is saying that P helps inside bacteria get essential nutrients from the surrounding environment. So those inside bacteria are j chilling getting those nutrients. This answer choice is saying that the bacteria without P are hella stressed about getting essential nutrients in the surrounding environment so they have to form this wrinkled surface (idek) to make contact with the surrounding environment. Indirectly, this supports the notion that P helps bacteria get essential nutrients from the surrounding environment and therefore acts as a pipeline.

I actually did not stick to the CC schedule provided by 7Sage because (like you said) my time for completion did not match up. If you can through it in order and with full effort (like @ecoughlin16529 said) then I would 1000% recommend it. Take advantage of the comment sections and add your questions and answer others too! I know you you are eager to head into timed sections or even practice tests (that was my mistake the first time around studying), but I promise the upfront preparation will work WONDERS.

Also, if you are feeling super comfortable with a certain lesson or section, no shame in moving faster than you expected through the CC. But it's most important to be self-aware and ask yourself if you're moving on to move on or moving on because you are confident.

All of this is coming from lessons I've learned through this whole process so I hope it helps!

Thank you so so so much for taking the time to write these. This absolutely helped so much! @masi809 @maizinburly527

Any interest in BRing an LR section on Sunday? @tunamelt99396 @dimakyure869

Premise: Vague law —> Vague limit —> /Know

Conclusion: Vague law —> /Feel secure

Predicted SA: /Know —> /Feel secure

AC A is the contrapositive (therefore correct) of my prediction.

Came back to this question months and months later...feels good to get it right. But still! JY's video reminded me of important lessons. Parse out the context from the argument with intensity. If you predict the SA, make sure to frame the contrapositive of it in your mind as well so an answer choice in the form of a contrapositive doesn't throw you off.

I also really like something that is noted by the users below. AC E allows the possibility that investment in new technology might contribute to increased productivity if the type of new technology invested in changes. Maybe they could get away with a small amount of investment in a new technology tomorrow. However, AC D is like hell no they will NOT increase their productivity with this small amount of investment, making the raises in wages impossible and making the conclusion valid.

I'd like to join as well! I've already taken the PT and BR'd a while ago but I'd love to join in and refresh my thinking by listening in.

I think except would fall into Group 3 of logical indicators (along with unless, until, or, without).

All the words in this group follow this translation rule: You pick either idea, then negate that idea, then make the idea you negated the sufficient condition.

1st idea (vaguely): A just government never restricts the rights to act upon desires.

2nd idea (vaguely): The desires are a direct threat to health or property of citizens.

Let's pick the first idea and negate it. A just government restricts the rights to act upon desires. We make that the sufficient condition. Then the 2nd idea is the necessary condition.

If a just government restricts the rights to act upon desires, then the desires are a direct threat to the health or property of citizens.

This also makes common sense. If the government only does something in one case, then we know that one case happens if they did that thing.

Love your last sentence! Totally relate. I think there is one more thing we can criticize D for that JY doesn't mention. AC B says a child more readily adopts a behavior through method X versus other methods. We see this in the stimulus. The child more readily adopts the behavior after method X versus the two other methods (imitation and reasoning) given. AC D says a child OFTEN imitates a behavior. We have one instance in which something resembling imitation (like you said imitating the behavior of the parent and doing it herself). We cannot say often then.

You're saying the condition rule is a government is just if they do not restrict people's rights. That's breaking down the first half of the sentence into it's own conditional lawgic. If a government does not do this.....then it is just. However, our conclusion isn't about whether a government is just. Our conclusion is about whether the desires are a direct threat to the health of property of citiziens. The conditional rule that allows AC A to be right is this: If a just government restricts the rights to act upon desires, then the desires are a direct threat to the health or property of citizens.

I understand maybe figuring out the contrapositive to JUST --> /RESTRICT PEOPLE'S RIGHTS, but that's not the lawgic focus. I'm not sure if this made sense but I've love to hear your thoughts.

I had the same thought and I think it is implied that they are available to the general public. It cites compounds harmful to human beings (not direct support but not hurting the support either). I also think you can buy pesticdies at like Home Depot or something for your garden.

Hopefully I can help out on this one. I don't think that subsidies from the Indian government can mean local involvement in this case. I do recognize it's a bit confusing since the author says "local involvement at all levels" but India is a nation so I'm not sure if that is "local." Here is how I understood it:

The final sentence of the passage contains an assertion composed of a premise and a conclusion.

Premise: The Danish agency, unlike its U.S. counterpart, recognized the importance of local involvement at all levels.

Conclusion: The project has a good chance of remaining competitive and profitable in the long run.

To call into question the author's assertion, we need to break the bridge between the Danish's emphasis on local involvement being a/the key contributor for competitive and profitable projects.

AC A: Exactly. We are no longer convinced that the profitability was due to the emphasis on local involvement but rather the temporary subsidies.

AC B: The emphasis on local involvement could still be the reason for success.

AC C: What....

AC D: What....

AC E: Okay....and?