10/12

This would've felt impossible just a few weeks ago!

I was also tempted by this but no where in the passage does it say that the medical experts get to decide what is admissible/explain it/make it understandable. Only that if they were admissible, medical experts would be testifying to their accuracy, which is just giving their opinion. That's not necessarily explaining an illustration, but saying that something is accurate based on their experience.

I would shift your perspective for these questions, you aren't being doubtful of these answers as you were in previous question types (if I'm remembering correctly). You are trying to find the best fit and the causal relationship here links and does resolve the question. Hope that reminder helps, it's the way I'm approaching these questions types!

I always review! Usually, I find that JY says something I didn't consider about the other answers that might be good to remember for future (harder) lessons.

Also - I paid for these videos lol

I think that's the right mindset to have! You're only going to get better at this with practice. But you switched your mindset the way you were taught. Nice work!

Why does "downtown traffic congestion decrease" come after "profits increase"? Is it not the case that profits will increase if downtown traffic decreases?

Everyone I've heard from says that speed comes with practice and you end up taking risks based on patterns you recognize from prior questions. Does that give me confidence? Not yet! But that's what I have been told.

Something that might help is just limiting yourself on the assumptions you can make. This is easier said than done, of course. We just don't know why the mayor invested in computer technology.

I've been doing a lot of "but where do I see that?" when I go over the answers and it's been helpful thus far. You got this!

Interested!

I think that's probably an overcomplicated way to view it, but I understand why you'd boil it down that way. Here's how I think about it:

You aren't say that no dogs are friendly. You are responding to the claim that all dogs are is an incorrect perspective.

Some dogs are friendly. But not all.

You are essentially making the circle of "friendly dogs" smaller.

We don't really care about the friendly dogs scenario, anyway. The LSAT wants us to look at the relationship.

All X are Y.

It is not the case that all X are Y.

That isn't the same as "No X are Y."

Let me see if I can help you out!

We are looking for an assumption that the argument relies on, which is essentially looking for a piece of evidence that would strengthen the argument of the passage.

Here's what the argument is:

People who have jobs say that they are experiencing distress because the region is dealing with layoffs. But spending hasn't diminished in the region, because the people who still have jobs aren't saving their money.

This is a bad argument. Like the video says, it basically arguments that people who still have jobs are either 1. saving their money or 2. spending it.

But we are supposing this is true and are looking for a way to strengthen the argument. What assumption works with the argument?

If you look at the question this way, you see that the answer choice A makes sense for the writer of the passage.

The people who have debts aren't paying them off. If they were, it would give us a third option.

1. Save

2. Spend

3. Pay off debt

But they're not and the argument in the passage relies on that option not being there.

Is that helpful?

I am also having this issue!