I just want to know why they made a big deal about the noun and subject and predicate and all that. Lets be honest, on an actual test, who truly has time to break down a passage like that to get to the right answer? They talk to much with a bunch of filler words in the explanation and that throws me off even more.

So I am thrown off by "B" being the correct answer. I do not think the explanation made much sense to me. Can someone explain. How was I supposed to assume that An fMRI has the potential to compromise patient privacy in circumstances in which a genetic profile would not when the passage states, "Like a genetic profile, a functional magnetic-resonance image (fMRI) of the brain can contain information that a patient wishes to keep private."

That sentence is saying they both do the same thing in the way of compromising patient privacy...or that is how I took it, so I definitely did not rely on B as the answer....anyone got a better explanation to this rather than this person's explanation?

This person said, "(B) tells us that, considering what we know to be true about fMRIs, there are situations where an fMRI could potentially compromise a patient’s privacy. In those same situations, a genetic profile does not have this potential."

I am not following in the way this person breaks it down.

right?

No doubt! What kind of motivation video is this? I did not find it motivational at all. All I seen was someone that was already really good and just not okay with her score... I did not see a motivation.

I was wondering that too!

I completely agree. I have read books that contradict this information. We will be doing one section and the author says that the LSAT does not care what you know of the real world, we stick to what they type as being true, but then in answering other questions that same author has said, "Now we know that this is not at all true just by living, so we can eliminate these answer choices, and that has made me struggle trying to maintain when I can use real world knowledge to get to certain answers on certain tests.

Even went as far as saying on Necessary Assumption questions, the answer does not come from neither the conclusion or the support alone, but directly from the relationship of the reasoning between the two, so that is how I answered a few questions with that mindset and got them wrong because the answer was directly a restatement of the conclusion.

This is a well known author with well known books. To say I have restarted all of my fundamentals to focus on each type to not be confused is an understatement.

This was one of the reasons it was not supported by the answer choice.

How long are you all studying or will have studied before taking the LSAT? I am not advancing as fast as I would want, and I am critical of myself due to studying over 4 months and scoring barely in the 150s.

Following, to be honest, I hate the conditional reasoning questions.

I am new and suck at this, so if anyone can shed some light on what I am doing wrong by adding me, I would be forever thankful!

So read that argument again, after each statement ask, Why should I believe that? the other statements should or could answer it not the other way around.

I am just going to give a quick shot of this. A law graduate made a video and he said to go through the statements in each argument at ask after each statement, "Why should I believe that? If the other sentences support that statement, you can sometimes find the conclusion no matter where it is found as well as indicator words.

BUT THIS AS A USED EXAMPLE WHEN IT IS A STUDYING TOOL IS ABSURD.