Another flaw in option D is that simply stating that the ichthyosaurus is different from whales does not prove it is different from all deep-diving mammals. To be correct, the answer choice would need to specify that deep-diving animals have other characteristics that the ichthyosaurus does not possess.

B also fails to consider that offering Azedcorp more than they originally paid assumes the price of the shares remained consistent. However, the price could have gone in the other direction. For instance, if Azedcorp's shares increased by 500% since their initial purchase, the offer would be unreasonable. Essentially, B relies on the assumption that the price of the shares has not increased significantly since the initial purchase.

I am having the same issue

Another reason A is not the correct answer is that the stimulus focuses on family size, not just the number of children. The term "family size" can theoretically include aunts, uncles, and other relatives. Option A increases the average number of children but does not address family size. The only way this point would be irrelevant is if we assume that exposure to germs from children is relevant, while exposure to germs from adults in the family is not. This assumption seems unreasonable.

I saw the part to whole flaw and hunted for it but the tricky language tripped me up

Thanks!

And yes, my initial mistake was thinking that doing more practice tests (PTs) and drills would somehow drill the understanding into me. For me, that approach didn’t work. Changing your strategy might be the key if you’re investing a decent amount of time into studying but not seeing improvements.

One additional point I didn’t mention earlier, for the sake of brevity, is something I learned from 7Sage: RC strategies. Follow the curriculum closely and learn the five passage types they outline (focused on perspective and engagement styles). Practice their method of creating low-resolution summaries, which can help you retain the main ideas without getting bogged down in unnecessary details.

Also, prioritize engaging with the passage as you read, rather than speeding through it. Check back with the rest of the passage every few lines to ensure you’re threading the ideas together cohesively. This method helped me stay connected to the passage and improved my comprehension.

I hope you achieve the score you’re aiming for!

Thanks!!

This was a really good exercise!

#feedback

Can we get this in a diagram?

#feedback

The diagrams offered for the other formal arguments were beneficial. Please make one for this formal argument.

Did anyone else make the domain "Residents of the Beresford"?

The conditional could be:

/purpose --> prohibited

/prohibited ---> purpose

This way seemed more sensible to me. Wondering your thoughts.

I would like to see one of these for all question types at the end of the curriculum for LR and RC

This one is very unclear. Took me a while to reflect on it.

Maybe this helps.

When you're trying to find a missing conditional and the conclusion is a conditional statement, you can "kick up" the sufficient condition from the conclusion into the premises. This "hypothetical" transformation helps you identify what conditional rule is needed to bridge the premises to the conclusion.

Here's the process:

Identify the Conditional Conclusion: Spot the conditional statement in the conclusion.

Kick Up the Sufficient Condition: Move the sufficient condition (the "if" part) of the conclusion into the premises.

Find the Missing Conditional: With this new information in the premises, determine what conditional rule would logically lead to the original conclusion.

Apply the Rule: If you can create a conditional rule that fits, you can use it to logically connect the original premises to the original conclusion.

This technique allows you to see the logical structure more clearly and identify the missing rule needed to make the argument valid.

Putting an example using negatives under the disjunction in the sufficient condition header added an unhelpful level of complexity. The content appears to describe that omitting either element of a sufficient disjunctive negates the possibility of triggering the necessary condition.

The page summary feature is amazing!

I had two different logical reasoning sections. The first LR was really hard, and I barely made it through the section in time. I flagged about 6 questions that I didn't have time to return to. My second LR was much easier and I completed the section with about a minute left. Any thoughts on which is the experimental section?

I had two different logical reasoning sections. The first LR was really hard, and I barely made it through the section in time. I flagged about 6 questions that I didn't have time to return to. My second LR was much easier and I completed the section with about a minute left. Any thoughts on which is the experimental section?

@ I had the same question.

Will there be a new RC section up in its place?

#help

is the target time listed under the passage referring to the target time of reading the passage or reading the passage and completing its questions?

This question was truly challenging

In this question, the correct answer choice was impressively subtle

@ Thanks for sharing your journey! I am in the same boat. I applied for 8 local schools with a 158 LSAT score. I applied in early November. I have a 3.9 GPA. I have received a rejection and one waitlist for schools where I was within the median LSAT score and above in the GPA. Then, I received a waitlist for UCLA, although I am far below the LSAT median.

So, that gave me some hope. Your post gave me hope!

By the way, I don't think you mentioned your GPA. What was your GPA?

I've noticed in the past few lessons that the stimulus tends to quickly shift sets. Then, the conclusion speaks on the newer set. While reading, we're baited to assume the same set is being discussed, or perhaps we're so hyper focused we don't notice the subtle shift. In this case, the NA plays on this transition.

In this question, the stimulus discussed a shortage of qualified teachers "in the region." We're told that if the classroom size shrinks, more teachers have to be hired, but the quality of teachers fails when teachers are unqualified. The stimulus basically concludes that smaller size classes would then suffer. This assumes that the unqualified teachers would be hired.

But why not hire teachers from other regions with qualifications?

When I noticed the trend I mentioned above, I told myself to be alert for these slight-of-hand moves in the stimulus. Then, sure enough, I preempted the move and was able to hunt for the correct answer.

I'm sharing this because it's an insight that's been helpful to me.

Hope this helps!

@ Thanks for sharing your journey! I am in the same boat. I applied for 8 local schools with a 158 LSAT score. I applied in early November. I have a 3.9 GPA. I have received a rejection and one waitlist for schools where I was within the median LSAT score and above in the GPA. Then, I received a waitlist for UCLA, although I am far below the LSAT median.

So, that gave me some hope. Your post gave me hope, too!

I don't think you mentioned it, but what is your GPA?

It's insane how hard it was to get this right