SAME!! So frustrating

So, the "almost all" in the stimulus gives us the space to infer that, in some instances, it doesn't work out. While yes, "some" can mean a lower constraint, the lower limit being at least 1 to all on the LSAT, it's not as important in the grand scheme as to why A is incorrect. A is saying that some cars that receive regular maintenance still break down, which the "almost all" in the stimulus accounts for. So, A is just pointing out a fact that we already know to be true, thus it doesn't weaken the argument as it's merely consistent with it. I hope this helps!

So glad I could help :)

This question is a tough one! So, we should treat the premises as two instances that have occurred as a result of the mild winter. 1. Birds are going to bird feeders less and foraging naturally, and 2. Birds are staying in their summer ranges and not dying as a result of the migration. These two premises support our conclusion that the mild winter last year has caused an increase in the bird population this year. All we have to do is strengthen the support of the premises to the conclusion - that's it! We don't have to link the attrition accompanying migration with feeding places etc., we just have to find one of these or both premises and bolster the support to the conclusion.

So, if we look at the premises, one of them is that because of the mild winter, this has allowed birds to forage naturally. Additionally, there are fewer birds visiting bird feeders as a result. This premise doesn't really support anything, it just seems like a fun fact - why should we care that birds are now visiting bird feeders less? In comes the correct answer choice C, which clarifies and further supports our conclusion by stating that birds are more at risk at bird feeders. So, since they're foraging naturally and not vulnerable at bird feeders, this has led to an increased bird population, supporting our conclusion.

Don't give up! A 165 is totally achievable with practice. I initially got this wrong when I started my LSAT journey over 6 months ago. The LSAT is an incredibly frustrating exam, and that's all it is. Don't let it break your will! This is as much a test of endurance as it is about learning the material. This is not a measure of intelligence or anything substantial about you, I promise. Flag this question and figure out where you went wrong, why you chose that answer, and what baited you. The LSAT writers are really mischievous in how they write their answer choices, so find the patterns that attracted you to this answer choice. Then figure out why the correct answer choice is the right one, and what clues you in that this is the right answer choice over the others. But right now I think it's also important to take a break, take a walk, or a nap, and come back with renewed energy. You got this!!

sup

praying we never have to see this test day D,:

Ikr it was like my brain just glazed over it

The M → N AND O application in English means that "If M was adopted, then N and O must be adopted."

The contrapositive using De Morgan's would then be /(N AND O) → /M,

further breaking down into /N OR /O → /M. In English, "If N was not adopted or O was not adopted, then we know that M was not adopted."

Knowing that /N occurred would be enough to know that /M occurred. The same would be true if we only knew that /O occurred because a disjunction in the sufficient condition means they can work independently of one another.

I hope this helps!

Dang didn't understand the difference between household and population and got E ughhh

GOD I need to remember that with EXCEPT questions it's OPPOSITE DAY

So, A does not strengthen the argument because within the stimulus it has already made that concession that many of the dinosaurs were already on the brink of extinction. A essentially is just a repetition of what was already stated in the stimulus, which doesn't strengthen the argument, it is just functionally a reinstatement.

Definitely! The trick is identifying which part of the causal chain is unsupported and needs to be linked up to the rest.

Yeah same! I also didn't identify the first sentence as the conclusion, but was still able to break it down by identifying that "a-acid" was disconnected from the entire chain. This question is a definite time waster during the exam though - brutal.

god these except questions will kill me I know it

We can do hard things :,)

Yeah this question was a bit confusing, and on my first go I chose E versus the correct answer D, and this is what I've found.

I think the way you're thinking about what's "Goku" in these experimental problems might be the core issue. The premise here would be that there is an experiment taking place comparing joggers who stretch and joggers who don't. While the support constitutes the steps within an experiment that allow for it to be ideal, like a randomly selected population or controlling for the placebo effect. Answer choice D weakens the support of the argument by pointing out that the population within the experiment was not randomly selected.

Is the wrong answer journal one that's available on 7Sage or is this just a personal journal?

Keep getting 3/5 on medium ughhhhh

Hey yeah same, I just finished the Conditional and Set Logic section within Foundations. I'd be interested in studying together!

Oh! Got it, so there can be distance between "only if." Thanks so much!

I WILL SCORE A 170+ !!!! LETS GOOOOOO

Wait I think I'm confused with your language here. In your bar example, I circled "only" with the words following "enter a club" as the necessary conditions, while "if" and the words following "you're over 21 years old" are the sufficient conditions. Therefore "enter a club" is the superset and "+21" is the subset, wouldn't that make being + 21 sufficient to enter a club?