This question is fairly easy and many ppl might get scared away by the AC being super simply but remember..... by negating the AC "public funds should NOT support art" the argument fall apart. Boom.

The thing that helped me get this question right is the fact that it says " they regret" - Marc and Robert: "although they are troubled." This suggests that they are concerned about "the country's current situation." AKA its not doing so hot because Robert says they are troubled and Marc says they regret the revolution.

@goodluckonthelsatguys bruh nvm just watched the video I was right. I was just trying to make sure I fully understood and went over my personal reasoning before watching the video

Is this correct? I chose A because I understood the AC to suggest that they have an "impairment in their ability to use and understand words" by being like oh I'm tasting blue but in reality they meant they're tasting xyz but cant explain it properly because they're dumb so they blurt out some bs to try to explain what they are eating.

EX: a person eating popcorn and biting the kernel and being like it taste like a rock and grey because it feels like a rock. Just dumb logic like that. Is that what this means?

@SeamusMcCarthy A witness is anyone that gives a testimony. So I wouldn't completely cross it out due to the word witness. The question writers sometimes throw me off with words so I wouldn't even blame you w this. They kinda expect you to know / decipher meanings without really knowing what a word means. Had a couple of questions where I ruled something out bc I didn't know what a word meant lol

in the video explanation it they say that other methods could lead to messing up but am I wrong for doing this? I basically drew 3 dots. 2 of those are Happy students (the left 2 most) and the 2 most to the right are graduate students. there was 1 that overlapped and thats how I came to conclude B was the correct answer.

Basically this.

Student 1:Happy

Student 2:Happy, G.S, OW

Student 3: G.S, OW

@SirHarvey me too. didn't even bother to keep reading and fell for the wrong trap ac. B basically says that no known natural cause is likely to account for 8 meteorite craters. "METEORITE" as in space rocks. rules out the fact that it wasn't meteorites but indeed "probably caused by volcanic events" strengthening the argument

@Haleh Hey, I know this might be a little too late but the reason why I chose to believe it was not C is the fact that we are talking about how "there was light" for Klein to make the identification. Which answer choice would overlook the fact there was enough light? In other words, what is something that would have messed with us reaching the conclusion that there was enough light? This is a flaw question. It ignored the fact that maybe there was a thunderstorm, maybe there was clouds, hmmm there was idk... a giant blocking the moon light! A cloud covering therefore altering the amount of light visible at that time would be the perfect answer. This is the thing they over look. The flaw in their argument lies in the fact that they were only thinking about ideal conditions. They completely ignored the fact that other things could have been happening

@AakashChigurupati I doubt you'll still be on here but yes and no. Technically they weren't "proven wrong within the margin of error so they are still good".

The conclusion fell between the range of statistical error therefor meaning it is still good. Big difference.

You don't want to think of it as proven WRONG but still good. That could trip you up. What this means is that it falls between the range of it being correct.

|---2---------------| 2 could be anywhere within that ^^ and still be correct. It isn't something like it has to be exactly in the middle to be correct. No, the WHOLE range is what is correct.

add me please

For anyone that may need help with this kind of question:

When questions are like this P ---> C then the premise will always be the sufficient condition and the conclusion will be the necessary condition.

Because if P is true then the conclusion is true.

If there is ever only 1 premise and 1 conclusion, then the answer will be merely a restatement or a restatement but in the contrapositive. The lsat will try to trick you by using different words.

@jessiekopp5 not really. D is talking about children tossing the ball back with better accuracy. That is extending way beyond the scope of the argument. The argument talks about children's catching ability and how they can catch faster balls than you think.

The answer is going to be something that explains why children have an easier time catching balls and D does not support that.

D is saying well children are able to toss the ball back with more accuracy if they throw the ball at faster speeds than when they throw the ball back more slowly.

A explains how children actually have an easier time catching balls that are thrown at a faster speed. It is because "balls thrown at a faster speed, unlike balls thrown at a slower speed, trigger regions in the brain that control the tracking of objects for self defense"

Essentially saying well when a ball get thrown at a faster speed a child's brain activates a specific area that helps with tracking of an object for self defense.

@abjaved00 I personally think that having the harder ones first makes things so much easier.

You get trained to understand hard concepts at first and when you get something like this you can figure it out in seconds.

@ktacklesthelsat as Ryan mentioned you must take everything as a fact. Here we know you cannot have more than 70-100. It isn’t a suggestion. It is a fact.

Think of this analogy:

You and your friend both weigh exactly 150 lbs and are planning on sitting on the same couch. The couch cannot withstand anything over 300 lbs.

if you take everything here to be a fact, what must be true is you cannot add another body or even an extra lb as 300 is the limit given. Anything over 300 would result in a broken couch or an extension to the fact making the fact no longer a fact. If you have 301 lbs on it then the weight limit is obviously not 300 anymore.

Within the stimulus you know 70-100 is the limit given and if you add simply 250 then the limit is no longer 70-100. (You disproved it by adding 250 when the limit is supposed to bWhich means you didn’t take that fact as a fact. B seems tempting and what the LSAT tried to do here is catch those off guard who are working too fast + relying on indicators. What I mean here is one may have seen 250 and self sustaining (both facts of the premise) and said “oh that’s good!” When in fact it disregarded one fact! It took one fact as false (the limit), but 2 as true (exceeding 250 and being self sustaining). This is why it’s important to not rush and take everything in carefully

You’ve got this! We all do

@leburger It sounds like the biggest driving factor for you is the application cycle. You wanted to apply early, get scholarship $, and get into a t-14. Those are good goals I won't lie, but you shouldn't beat yourself up. Worst comes to worst, you apply the following cycle. The lsat is hard, becoming an attorney is hard, this whole road is hard. At the end of the day, it all comes down to your drive and desire. What happened to you was a setback, but are you going to let that setback really define you? Think of your future. If you give up now, there may be a point in which you regret not going to law school. Do you want to live with regret? Do you want to live with the fact you gave up because of x, y and z? I don't know you, and you don't know me but I guarantee you thousands of people have been in your shoes before or in similar situations. Think of all the generations before us, and all of the ones to come. More often than not people think about quitting. Do not let it get the best of you. You can never be behind in your own life and when you come to terms with that, you will succeed. You're going to get older no matter what and realistically it is: do you want to be x years old with a JD and practicing law or just x years old? Do not worry about time, do not stress about being or feeling behind. You might be out $250, but what if that day god saved you from an accident. Remember, things happen for a reason and when they happen, all you can do is move on and accept them.

@Lylas123 I personally do not think it is a bad approach but you need to be careful.

If you are reading the question stem first and then reading the stimulus, you should be fine. (Because you will know it is a MC question.)

if you aren't reading the question stem and simply know it is a MC question because this is the concept we are studying right now then you should be a little worried.

You need to take in all of the information because what if it isn't a MC question? On exam day you wont know if it is or isn't until you read the question stem.

@peterfoulke1 it actually does tell you that. When you finish it on the correct / incorrect screen it says PT143 Section 4 Question 16

To whoever cares: One thing that is helping me with speed on MC questions is to find the conclusion. That sounds like a given, and it is. More often than not these question types follow the same rules. Look for transition words.

This stimulus states:

"but this process can be awkward for both the patients and the physicians, SINCE" (followed by premises)

Now look at the answer choices.

C is almost a carbon copy of that.

"This process of obtaining a second medical opinion can be awkward for those involved."

All you're adding is what the process is and the other answers (the incorrect ones have "assumptions")

A) - not seek a second opinion? what?

B) - essentially restating a premise given. Not the conclusion.

D) - uncomfortable? It mentions that in a premise. AND always? that language is too strong. You are adding stuff in which makes it incorrect.

E) - It focuses on the patient being concerned about offending physician and completely ignoring the fact that it is awkward for both parties.

@mrrobotjeremy The trick with this question is that it is telling you that an argument is unlikely to be correct. Therefore, everything that follows is support as to why it is unlikely to be correct making C the main conclusion.

I read a lot of comments about not doing very well in these skill builders so I wanted to share something that made me do good on them.

1: Read the statement and take a minute to process what was just said.

2: write out what the statement is using in lawgic.

3: negate the statement by adding "it is not the case that..." but I prefer to use "it is not true that.."

4: Take a little to process what was just said.

5: Translate to lawgic.

Lets do a quick example.

All non-water breathing mammals have limbs.

1: okay, all non water breathing mammals have limbs. Got it.

2: using lawgic this means: nwbm ---> limbs

3: Lets negate: It is not true that all non-water breathing mammals have limbs.

4: What does this mean? It means that some non water breathing mammals do not have limbs. Why? Because we were told that it wasnt true ALL non water breathing mammals have limbs. Therefor, some must not have limbs.

5: Lets translate some non water breathing mammals do not have limbs to lawgic: We know that for some we use <--s-->

therefor NWBM <--s--> /L

What does that mean if we read it? well some non-water breathing mammals do not have limbs and some that do not have limbs are non water breathing mammals. (since some uses <--s-->)

I hope this helps guys!

@Jcruzmed I'm applying 2026

@JoalGue I think I can help. If we look at question 3 the prompt states "Anyone infected by the virus will, after a week, produce antibodies to fight the virus."

Stop and think about that phrase for a second. What does it tell you off the bat? Well it tells you "anyone that is infected by the virus"

But wait. That sounds incomplete. That's because it is. Anyone that is infected by the virus AND "after a week" will begin to produce antibodies to fight the virus. You need both the virus and a week of being infected by the virus to start to producing antibodies. So when you negate "infected and 1 week -> antibodies" you keep the same negation rule: Work backwards and switch it to not or "/"

/ antibodies --> / infected and /1 week

This is essentially saying you will not produce antibodies if you are not infected and hasn't been 1 week. But why does the 1 week matter now if you aren't infected. It doesn't! Therefor this is not correct. In the previous lessons we learned we need to switch and for or when negating. So what do we have now?

/ antibodies --> / infected OR /1 week

Lets read this sentence now. You will not produce antibodies if you are not infected or hasn't been 1 week. WAIT! That makes sense. If I am not infected then why would I produce the antibodies for the virus? There is an or so lets say I am infected but I haven't been infected for a week. We know "after a week" one begins to produce antibodies. So how can I begin making antibodies if it hasn't been a week? This is correct and makes total sense.

In short, negate like normal. Switch and for or + vise versa

@JapjeetSuden yes, it would be and its basically what he did. Instead of showing it in a linear format like we are used to seeing he was like well if not years of training then tom is not a force user and because he is not a force user he is not a jedi. (so he worked backwards or "used the contrapositive"

@norjamca I don't think you are necessarily wrong but you want to be careful when thinking like that. Personally I believe this one was the easiest due to the wording. The LSAT is tricky but sometimes it isn't trying to trick you. The word requires is a common word for something that comes before something else. For example, imagine baking a cake. You require eggs. So before you can have the cake you need the eggs in raw form. You'd be backtracking here. Acquiring knowledge requires information processing.

hmmm: so I need Information processing before I can get to acquiring knowledge. But wait! to get information processing it requires computation!

A pyramid is technically a sequence of events because you have to work from bottom up. IMO it would be easier to think of it as a previous step or "sequence of events." This way you can avoid any confusion that you may encounter by thinking of stuff as a pyramid.