Hi everyone,
Recently it seems like the old goal times for games have disappeared and seem to have been replaced by seemingly random times generated with strange goal times (ex. instead of 6 mins for PT 15, G3 it's now 7:52 for some reason). Can anyone comment on this and is it possible to bring back all the old goal times for games?
Yeah I'm having the same issue I think there's some bug going on!! We should try to alert whatever admins if possible
Let me know if you have any openings! I could use some help with LG!
I'd say only review it really if you had an answer choice(s) that you hesitated on before you picked the right answer. If you didn't hesitate on any of them and picked the right answer then I think its pretty safe for you to not review it, especially if you don't have much time left before your test.
Did anyone find this question to be hard bc it appears to be so simple? I zeroed in on the conclusion almost immediately, but the correct AC almost literally word for word re-describes the conclusion. I find most MC correct answers don't do this (they tend to paraphrase) and the ones that do tend to be trap answer choices so I spent a full minute looking through the other answer choices before being okay with choosing the correct answer choice. TLDR; thought correct AC was too simple and wasted time questioning my initial intuition.
#help (Added by Admin)
Definitely interested!
I noticed here that JY jumped to the conclusion and wrote it down first before looking at the premises, is that a technique worth repeating on all other SA questions or just for the more conditional reasoning heavy ones? #help
This just goes to show you the level of subtlety the LSAT can reach. A support NO MATTER HOW SMALL is still a support nonetheless. For Answer A, the fact that another animal also has this oxygen in spleen capability shows that other animals also do this, which supports the conclusion. No matter how irrelevant talking about horses may seem when the stim is about seals, the tiny sliver of support is still 100% more right than Answer B, which talks about muscle tissue and is completely irrelevant to the passage.
I chose A because the word "abatement" to me just means the stopping of something. Nowhere in the text does it explicitly mention a net reduction in environ degradation, it may happen but the text doesn't explicitly state it will. So if the damage is "abated" then a damage of -50 each year will go to 0 each year. So there is not net reduction of damage happening. However the text does say that batteries will come from coal fired or nuclear plants, and this is bad but it's not specified how bad exactly. Thus A's answer "worse environmental consequences than proponents may believe" encaptures the idea that electric cars will do some damage but doesn't specify by how much, which is what the passage says.
Trust in the Foolproof process man, if you haven't done each game from PT 1-35 at least 3-4 times each I would hesitate before you give up on LG entirely. From someone who used to think I was the exact same way, tripling/quadupling my old volume of LG problems done has helped a lot with ingraining problem solving patterns into my brain.