Honestly, in theory this sounds like a good method, but maybe other questions this won't work because they won't be offering an alternate hypothesis and maybe rather weakening a premise?

Nice. I get the one before this of easier difficulty wrong, but this of harder difficulty right? I am laughing at myself because how did I understand this one better than the previous one? I am genuinely so damn confused.

"Bazooka a ball at a kid and they be fine"

If it wasn't for JY's humor, I wouldn't laugh or smile while studying for this God forsaken test.

interested as well, insta: _gabecarroll

I really like it is possible, but I am not certain.

Is anyone mapping these out? I am curious because I am not. It comes easier to me than MBT questions for some reason. MBT will forever be an enemy and potentially final boss unless future questions give me more trouble.

I think it is best to assume the speaker is of an authoritative figure.

Yes and no. I just tell myself once I enter the LSAT realm. I leave everything I know about the real-world behind. I believe it is better that way to take the things the stimulus says as true. Sometimes, the stimulus can present real-world facts, and sometimes I have noticed it presents fact that contradict the real-world. So, just take the stimulus as true.

Does anyone have tips on how to consistently map conditionals better? It seems I am having quite the trouble mapping out the conditionals in the correct way to be able to answer the questions.

You don't. It is an except question meaning that the correct answer choice "MUST be FALSE". Based on the drawn out conditional, original and influential are two separate conditions necessary conditions and are independent of each other. Hence, cannot be connected to one another or have an effect on one another.

Try to review and refer back to the lesson, "Conjunction (and)" and specifically look at the conjunction in the necessary condition.

Trust me, I am having so so much trouble. I am struggling mapping out conditionals into lawgic and even understanding the stimulus. Must Be True and Must Be True Except has been my worst enemy so far.

Good luck studying!

Is it beneficial to ask myself, "Okay, that could or couldn't be true and we don't know for sure based off what I read in the stimulus" and then eliminate answers that way?

Also, will this apply to future question types and to even reading comprehension as well? I feel like it potentially could, but I am not sure.

My brain is f-cking spinning. I inferred Pat was not a member and still got the damn question wrong. Lmao, I need a drink.

Yeah I agree. Only thing I gathered from this one is that the use "may" essentially destroys a sufficient and necessary conditional. I could be mistaken, but that is what I gathered. It makes sense to me.

Lord help me.

I chose A. Yeah, I know that I feel dumb, but I chose A based on the last sentence lmao. I see why B is correct and I chose B in the blind review, but damn. I don't know if I misread or what. I see why A is wrong and why B is right, but why in the hell could I not notice that when doing the question under time constraints?

Hi! My name is Gabriel too lol.

Anyways, I completely agree. I am not even practice testing and it being timed is killing me. I swear if this test was not 35 min each section and maybe rather an hour. It would be easier, but unfortunately, that is not the case and we have to train our brains to think quickly and also alter them to think in a more logical way. I really see preparation for this test as a way of changing the way we think not only for the test, but for future careers as well. It can be beneficial in many aspects.

"Big Monies"

I think that is where assumptions come into play.

If that was the stimulus to a question, and it asked, which one of the following most seriously weakens the argument?

I believe an answer choice saying, it has not rained in that location in a sum number of years/months/weeks/days could be a correct answer (Location and sum number of years/months/weeks/days would highly depend on the context and other answer choices as well).

You are thinking correctly in terms of weakening the argument by making the assumption that "no heavy rain had occurred during the time of the event".

If I am thinking wrong, someone please let me know.

In need for clarification.

Is this a valid argument form?

A > m > B

A > C

B ←s→ C

interested

To add, I am so confused. I am understanding the point and idea of the sentence, but not how to breakdown the exception and rule.

In question 9, the conditional statement, "consumers should not presume that vagueness indicates an attempt to deceive on the part of manufacturers".

What is the sufficient and necessary conditions? Are there any indicators?

Question 14. Why can't we conclude that the number of bacteria soil increases since it mixing is not possible?

Is there a correct answer to exercise 1? I am continuously thinking about it and really need to know a correct answer.

#feedback #help

I am thinking about it myself. Since J > F or /F > /J. But since both A and C, COULD be true.

Since "to be a Jedi" is a sufficient condition, does that mean one could become a Jedi another way? Hence, the MUST BE TRUE answer would be A, "Tom is not a force user"?

I believe because it shows two different types of corruption.

However, I believe if there was a conclusion in question 4, then it could be chained together? I am not for sure. But I asked the question in the replies above yours.

To ensure I am thinking correctly.

For question 4, "The number of beneficial soil bacteria increases whenever plant material is mixed into garden soil. However, in order to mix plant material into garden soil, one must know how to cast the Herbivicus Charm"

Group 1: Mixed > Increases / Contrapositive: /Increases > /Mixed

Group 2: Mixed > Cast / Contrapositive: /Cast > /Mixed

However, there is no connection between "increases" and "cast".

But, if there was an additional sentence that contained a conclusion that said" Therefore, if you knows how to cast the charm, then the soil bacteria increases". Would that connection the two allowing a chaining of the conditionals to be formed?