thats what i interpreted

same. i think it was just i hadnt reviewed the parts of an argument, but as it went along it refreshed my memory.

about damn time i got one right

Fr like send me back to NAs atp

oops

i feel so bullied by whoever wrote this

Yes its in the core curriculum for that section, not sure explicitly, but heres my explicit explanation:

Think of it like: you can have a cookie only if you say please.

Outcome 1: you have a cookie.

Outcome 2: you have a popsicle.

Outcome 3 you have nothing.

Outcome 4: you said please but don't have a cookie.

Outcome 5: you said thank you.

*What can we infer based on the rule?

Outcomes:*

1: If you have a cookie, you must have said please. Because you can only have a cookie if you say please. There is NO way you didn't say please (unless there is a secret rule that we were not told because we only know "cookie->please"), because saying please is required... or necessary to get a cookie.

2. You have a popsicle. We said nothing about popsicles or anything else. Cookies could be the only thing that exists. We just know nothing about popsicles or if saying please will get you one.

3. You have nothing. You could have said please, but you have nothing so we know that saying please doesn't guarantee you a cookie. We only know that if you have a cookie, you must have said please.

4. You said please. Okay, so what? If we had said "if you say please you will get a cookie", you would have a cookie, because in this situation you said please (with this modification that shifts the "please" into the sufficient, we now know saying please will guarantee you a cookie.)

5. saying thank you guarantees you nothing (that we are aware of).

When I get mixed up, I replace "sufficient" with "guarantee". And for necessary, I think "required".

So looking at the original rule, think of it like "we can 100% know/guarantee that if you have a cookie, you said please". Because you can have a cookie ONLY if you say please.

If saying please is necessary-or a requirement- for getting a cookie, if you have a cookie, then you must have said please.

Example with "AND":

Think of a baking soda AND vinegar 'volcano' chemical reaction, look up a video if you don't know what that is. If you have an chemical reaction of bubbles with a "volcano", could you only have had vinegar? Definitely not. You would need baking soda AND vinegar.

So what if you had baking soda and vinegar. Do you have a bubbly volcano? No. Not necessarily. Little did you know, I poured in a gallon of water in with my vinegar and then mixed it with baking soda. Water will prevent the bubbly-reaction-volcano because it dilutes the vinegar too much. Yes you did not know that I had a gallon of water, but you can't assume that I did, and you can't assume that I didn't. You can't just think I won't. So, if we only know that we had both vinegar and baking soda, we still can't guarantee that there was a volcano bubbly reaction because I COULD have a gallon of water.

What were our sufficient and necessary conditions?

Sufficient/guarantee: volcano/bubbles reaction.

Necessary/required: baking soda AND vinegar.

volcano-->baking soda and vinegar.

but we can also look at contrapositive:

no baking soda and no vinegar --> means no volcano of bubbles.

why? because baking soda and vinegar are required for the volcano of bubbles.

What about: baking soda and no vinegar? Can we have a volcano?

no. we just have baking soda. Theres NO way you can have this reaction if you only have one ingredient.

Hope that helped.

They were equal observationally at the time. Its the only information the text offers on that point. We don't know anything else. Its not explicitly in the text but if you connect the conclusion and the premises (the keywords are observationally equal, superior, and simpler). SO how do you connect those? By the correct answer choice.

u r correct

got this wrong but i agree. These are just so natural and are so quick. Everything else though.....

i think so. its the equivalent.

kind of implied here

-Best of luck!

-Which difficulty level are you doing?

-Personally I drill each type until I feel like i'm not going to make mistakes that i totally didn't see coming. Like I'm okay with moving on when they're rlly silly mistakes. You know when. So I wouldn't move forward too quickly if you still have serious gaps.

-But ik u said you don't have time to master them (and i'm sure you are doing this), but look at the most common question types in the LR section and the most common ones u get wrong and then target drill those. But if you're not taking time to master, don't be surprised when u aren't consistently where you want to be. If you are understanding what you're doing wrong, on a bunch of different types, thats good, but I personally would be overwhelmed when I take my PTs and I get a bunch of them wrong.

-Understanding mistakes and remembering them for next time are different.

-But yeah October is close, but if you look at it like your actual test is in Nov you have over a month before then, and it might be worth it to take your time (a little) and attempt to master some of it as you do the CC. If you're focused it prob wont take u 10 days to somewhat master a single question type so don't let that deter u.

-Obv try to be at your best for the October test, but decide if you think taking your time now will be better for you than taking the time after your October test. I wouldn't rush it.

-The 7sage drills are still questions, just ignore the difficulty gauges. Because they're based off other ppl, and you might find a level 1 to be as hard as a level 5. Sometimes I do 5s in less than a minute and sometimes I would spend 4 minutes on a supposedly level 1 easy one. yikes.

-and you can random question type drill so its not all the same question type (I think seeing my personal stats on 7sage are useful). But if you think simulating the test w PTs will be best for you, then go for it!!

Other thoughts:

---Idk how you think, but i wouldn't view November as a backup, because I doubt you're a jimmy neutron who is ab to get a 180 or even Elle woods. Because you posted this, you care about your score and may still take the nov test regardless of how well u do in oct. So look at nov as the finals and oct as the prelims but be realistic with your emotional response.

-If you feel confident immediately after taking your oct test are you going to be as nervous/motivated as you may or may not feel now? How will you study if you think you got a bad score? Or a good one? And what if you end up doing the opposite of what u thought? October 23rd is score release and the nov test is nov 6-9th so think about your reaction and momentum in that timeframe before and after seeing your score. When your ego may or may not be bruised with score releases, you might panic because the nov test is in less than 20 days, or you did so well you cancel the nov test, or you work harder to improve your score in Nov. Do you work well in a panic and does your confidence impact your performance a lot? Regardless u have 2 weeks until that nov test. Will you be half-assing your studying because you will be cramming?

-At the end of the day, your experience and strategy will be key, but I'm sure you're capable of making solid progress.

Don't take any of this as discouraging, not my intention, my thoughts are jumbled and my grammar is shit, so if you read that i'm sure you'll do fine. Hopefully this was motivating and/or clarifying.

I'm sort of in the same boat, but i'm only taking nov because i know all the mindset stuff and the short timeline will hurt my studying efficiency.

they are. Bacteria develop resistance to the antibiotics which is why things like mrsa are such a problem.

I think it just uses pt scores that some users have. And then how many people get them wrong. So, it is prob related to the grey bar thing.

I wouldn't say certain reasons are more correct than others, they all have some sort of perspective. The stimulus highlights a decrease in average beak size, an absolute change, not necessarily the rate of decrease. We know it decreased, but not by how much, when, or if it was consistent. I think the focus should be on the observed trend in beak size over time, not specifically the rate of decrease. To preface my response I am not entirely understanding your thought process.

We don't know the exact methods used. They might have tagged individual birds and tracked changes over time individually, which might indicate a trend regardless of measurement bias. Or they could have held their arms out and caught birds that landed. Even if the researchers primarily caught smaller-beaked wild birds, we would still see a trend of decreasing beak size (if it was present). This trend needs an explanation beyond just measurement bias. If the researchers were skilled at capturing more large-beaked birds in some instances, the overall decrease trend would still need to be explained and many assumptions would have to be made because A doesn't do that obviously.

We also don't know if the averages for larger and smaller beaks decrease at the same rate each year (in your example), or that the few of the small birds found are the same as the average (you prob noticed that). For example, older wild birds (age 8) might have different beak sizes due to age or wear, and younger birds (age 2) might start off with mega beaks. Or the reverse, by evolution like the correct answer said. Regardless, the possible variability complicates focusing solely on the rate of decrease as the better explanation.

Additionally, we don't know the birds' lifespans or the generational turnover, which could also influence the observed trend.

We need an explanation for the overall decrease in beak size, not just an understanding of measurement bias. Your comment is valid in discussing rate consistency, but from what I interpreted, it doesn't fully connect with the passage's focus on the overall +/- trend. The study's potential bias (capturing more small-beaked birds) might affect initial measurements or a few measurements, but doesn't explain the consistent decrease over time, regardless of the rate of decrease. We just don't have a ton of info, I personally did not consider looking at it in terms of rate over time bc of the potential for variability. ???

I misread A and overlooked that A does not identify the cotton as green or brown (the special type in this stimulus. A could be referring to any cotton, and we don't know if processing long-fibered cotton is always eco safer than processing short-fibered cotton. For example, we don't know if processing hot pink long-fibered cotton could burn down entire forests instantly (which would make it definitely more unsafe eco).

TLDR the novel: Timing gets better with practice, there is a learning curve, actually pay attention to retain information, don't skip over confusing stuff hoping it gets better. If you started studying about 6 days ago at the time of your comment, idk what lessons you started with, but you may want to slow down a little. And if you have until Feb 2025, I would def say take your time on the core curriculum if you aren't, because that has made the biggest difference for me, so it could work for you. Focusing on timing isn't going to help you if you don't completely understand what you are doing.

I'm not the best person to answer this, but I am sort of still in the same boat. I am planning on taking it October and go back to uni in Sept. I really only started to study in more depth and somewhat consistently over the past month. Like a month and a half ago, before I had 7Sage, I only had a practice test booklet and questions would take me 10+ minutes (10 at my very quickest) regardless of being right or wrong. And 10 minutes without even considering all answers in depth and taking time to understand them. If they ended up being right, I didn't always understand completely.

So I was like okay I'm screwed, because at that time I was planning on the August LSAT. I didn't want to pay for 7Sage because I am broke, so I watched the LR mini lessons on YouTube. I had no previous class on logic. The mini videos helped A LOT because they started to break stuff down to the basics, and they brought me probably to around 6 or 7 minutes per question on avg, but I still wasn't comprehending every single word in the questions or the answers, and could not differentiate between answers. I did a PT for ONE LR section and it took me 2.5 hours (and I got half wrong of course ). So I have asked the same question as you.

Here is what I do:

---But for me, after starting 7Sage and really trying to understand every lesson's grammar and logic, has made a big difference. I'm not sure what your study method is, but I make sure EVERYTHING mentioned in the explanation videos or readings is so clear that I can think of it as common sense. If I don't understand even a small part, I do not move on until I can explain it from all angles. If my processing is slow, I don't move on. I did every little practice set in the lessons for logic and grammar (1.1, 1.2, 2.1.....), even the ones that were the same form but words were changed, like "Jen hates cats" or "Sue hates dogs".

--I watch all the explanation videos I struggle with, cannot explain things about, or that I just took a long time parsing. But in the beginning, I watched every video explanation in the drilling section. It takes a while. I do every BR and explain all the answer choices to the best of my understanding. I also drilled all 70 of the MP/MC sets at once before moving on, and did most of the MSS and POIs A/Ds. This helped with the foundation.

--At the beginning, I didn't take notes because my attention was split pretty badly so I wasn't really absorbing anything, idk if you are having that issue. However I do take notes on each of the question types and specific things I did not catch during the "you try" questions.

-I have dropped a lot of time. Like I can do most questions in 1 or 2 minutes unless I get distracted, get worked up and confused, or misread stuff. And I feel like I am getting most questions correct now after focusing on the foundation and patterns I see.

So basically, I think it comes with time and practice, but I would say definitely DO NOT speed through the core curriculum even if it's miserable (no offense). Because if that foundational knowledge isn't easily accessible and malleable in your brain, questions will continue to take a while.

I agree. But B is more reasonable than the others. I guess that I don't entirely understand when you can 'get into the brain' of the person to say that they would agree with something that was not in the picture until the other person responded.

However, one other reason I came up with for why B sort of works, is the phrasing "you are overlooking the promise of..." was a signal. Because Kim completely "overlooks" technology/research, I think that signals it's appropriate to judge if Kim would agree with that statement, and it works because the reasons to research more are clearly a solution to Kim's issues like the video said.

--In terms of Kim's opinion on "limiting the population or changes in diet" that you mentioned, those are fragmented answers. Like I understand what you were getting at with that, but they don't really matter in choosing an answer because Hampton didn't say either of those (unless I am missing something) or the answers have other signals that make them irrelevant.

So ig B is the most strongly supported even though its not ideal.

Yes but No. Yes if you include an evaluation of what "skeptics" really means to Waller (not much). This was a red flag for me because if you tried to link "skeptics" in both responses, you can't find that link in Waller's. So because he isn't actually referring to the general public as riddled with skeptics like Chin implies... Waller isn't directly getting to the core of B. That's how I looked at it. But I would not get rid of B solely because of the absence of the word "skeptics" in Waller's, but because Waller wasn't really referring to the same thing as Chin (Waller was consistent).

nvm someone already gave feedback below

I click start the blind review, then I go and review each answer in depth like the evaluation videos do it. I go through each question and narrow down why I think each of the answers I did not choose are wrong, and why I think the one I chose is right. With blind reviewing, if you disagree with your previous choice, you can recognize it and change your final answer selection by filling the bubble with the blue fill. You cant completely change your answer and get it completely correct, but you can show that you changed your mind.

So if I misread the argument, I could change my selection to the correct answer that i think is right during the blind review, and after returning to the drill screen and checking the box saying I completed the blind review, and then revealing answers, the priority box will show 'low priority'. So if I made a 'silly mistake' it doesn't flag that question as high priority (for needing more practice on) like it would if I had completely missed the correct answer.

I think he did going into that detail saying it's like another restatement of the premise- like B and D- that follows the conclusion. I don't know what else would be added.. what were you thinking about?

TLDR: The main conclusion of the argument is about the importance of voting in maintaining democratic institutions and social cohesion. The omission sentence helps to build this conclusion by providing a rationale for why individual actions are significant. However, it is not the main conclusion itself but a supporting point to illustrate the broader implications of collective inaction.

In detail:

The way I saw it is that "an act or omission…” clause is another step to explain the "why" in the previous sentence, which says [we need to consider the effect of a large number of ppl failing to do something]. The ["an act or omission…” ] then tries to set-up/act as an introduction to describe what those [effects] would be.. which is done by using theft as an illustrative example of a [damaging and not-right situation] in the following sentence. If you took out the [ommision sentence], the argument stands, not super clearly, but the support is there. But if you take out the first sentence it loses direction.

All the omission sentence is really saying is that the [omission/act is not right... if xyz]. If you try to identify how the following [theft sentence] supports the statement on righteousness made by the [omission sentence], you can't. You can't see the support there because the theft sentence is now talking about the insignificant effect of an act on society, not if it's good or bad, even though theft happens to be bad/dishonest. The theft sentence (talking about insignificant effects) better connects to the second sentence about the [imperceptible effect of a single vote], because when looking at the whole argument, the theft sentence is just serving as a negative example to contrast a situation with an assumed neutral or positive effect, like choosing not to vote.

So what is the argument's main point really relying on?

It relies on the reasoning that even small effects matter, because citizens not voting for example, can lead to destruction, crumbling, etc. Not if the act is right or wrong. If they are right or wrong just serves as evidence to why they should matter, because we can't always pick the positive or neutral situations.

And why do we specifically care if these small effects- like not voting- matter? Because it will apparently crumble democracy away. So the argument highlights the importance of voting,

That was my analysis at least, I hope that helped a little, even if I'm a little off.

I had the same question, but I think it's because the "however" is there, which is saying it doesn't matter if it is untenable or not, so that's why he says "maybe the do maybe they don't". Because it is never really confirming that some untenable positions did lead to the changes, its just saying that it doesnt matter.