@icedshakenespresso @antitrust_fan I get email notifications for every post I don't know how to turn off. I already deleted the comment. Could we please put this to rest?

picked B because it does assume when it says "suppose they are right" and uses that to discredit the thing by denying it. but ig thats not what occured. it didnt assume and later deny it. it assumed it to show it did not follow..

C is the only other answer that makes sense.

TAKEAWAY:

• saying "lets assume X" is not actually assuming X and cannot be taken as so.

i picked A and am still confused why its not correct on BR. just beucsae its forecast does not mean the problem is actually going to happen.

but KNOWING its wrong, i pick B. since it says "ONLY IF" . it says only choice is decrease expenditures, but the plan specifically is not the only way to do that, so the "only if" is not justified.

TAKEAWAY:

• accept all premises are true where no other information given contradicts it or gives other context.

@antitrust_fan I figured that other models would fare differently. I also found out since that the AI coach does not allow specific LSAT questions, so it's kind of irrelevant. But given anecdotal instances of Geminis hallucinations and articles about Gemini's hallucations, I would still say the point stands in regard to the rest of the AI coach's tasks, just a little more weakly: That there's curerntly limitations to AI that put it at risk of innacurate answers. Either way,

@maydhak I think at the very least, it does not automatically trigger like it does with Google searches or things like Spotify or Meta. You have to talk to it for it to work.

@charlenehansen good luck!

@charlenehansen I wouldn't go so far as to reccomend deleting 7sage, as my points have gone from 150s to 170s/high 160s, and its very useful. But definitely try to reccommend against usage more constructively. I'm surprised people aren't pointing out the biggest issue, which is cognitive offloading leading to worse critical thinking - dangerous for people taking the LSAT. @icedshakenespresso @cattail8148 Thank you for being the only others in this thread recognizing how harmful this is, because I was beginning to lose hope in people looking at the comments.

logic while taking question

stim: x has this quality, so subset of x has quality too even tho not obvious.

switched from B to C on BR. i think the phrasing of C is really more likely due to "althoguh this is not immediately obvious"

other contenders were A and B.

but A was in reverse order and idk if thats ok.

and B is too straightforward sounding?

but C feels like it isnt necessarily flawed, unless im interpreting "devoted to cargo storage" wrongly as "primary purpose is cargo storage"

AFTERWARDS

so it was A!

TAKEAWAY:

• just becuase a simliar phrase is used, doesnt mean its part of the logic or correct

• the strength of the answer has to be as strong in parallel.

• the answer, so long as it has the same premise conc structure, can be correct even if reversed.

picked A thinking nations do not have consciences (NDNHC) was a conclusion derived from blameworthiness implies C and A. and in turn supported MC. i was only right that it supported the MC.

On BR, i picked D, thinking blameworthiness implies C and A was the general conclusion, not realizing GC means main conclusion.

BOTH TIMES:

i saw NDNHC as deriving from blameworthiness implies A and C, not independently supporting it.

my question now is, how can i tell when something is DERIVED from something vs is supporting something else? can someone please answer this?

TAKEAWAYS:

• general conclusion means main conclusion, not a random non main conclusion.

picked E thinking: thermal insulation is alternative explanation for architecture changing. but im putting too much on that answer that isnt there.

C makes more sense, directly cuts off link.

TAKEAWAY:

• dont put reasoning into an answer that isnt there

• i was training myself on IDing alt exp questions, which is why i think i had the bias.

• read all answers carefully.

Narrowed to C and D in initial, picked D in a rush becasue C had an irrelvant phrasing (such a flexible thoery).

ON BR picked D.

was rushed for time.

REASONING

emperical theory REQUIRES conceivable observation that would refute it (if theory is false)

confusing sentence but basically

emp theory = needs to have conceviable observation to refute.

A: irrelavant

B: confuses the two.

C: confuses the point but is technically true. no conceivable observations shoes it to be false thereofre not emperical. yes

D: conceivable observations therefore emperical. mistakes necessary for sufficient.

E: wtf. whatever. im not even bothering.

swithced from D to C for this reason. think D just had more attractive phrasing.

TAKEAWAY

• if in a rush and having difficulty with stupidly phrased question, then break it down as much as possible. dont think about content, just break down the logic and what can be applied.

• if there is irrelevant phrasing in an answer, doesnt mean whole answer is irrelevant for giving context that does not matter.

• look out for suff/necc confusion.

• attractive phrasing does NOT mean better answer.

i picked C over D bc it seemed more similar in phrasing: giving two options outright. but it says X or Y not X and Y as the shopkeeper does. so, on BR, i switched to D.

TAKEAWAY:

• in parallel questions, when matching, take note of subtle differences like "and" "or" - they mean to different things and criteria. if you cant choose between two answers, observe this.

picked E thinking A was too vague and relied too mcuh on a pattern of behavior to be correct. didnt realize iw as distinguishing E from A thoguh they did the same thing.

Picked B thinking the rest were weak. however I did not realize it says "enable obese humans to lose weight" instead of "prevent humans from becoming obese"

knowing that, picked C.

TAKEAWAY:

• make sure in MSS, that the issue suposedly supported is phrased the same way. read carefully. distinguish between concepts.

• if all MSS answers are vageu and not well supported, remember to just pick the best supported one. doesnt have to be very likely.

heres how I worked it out, in case it helps anyone.

initally between D and E and picked E. i dont remember why.

STIM: most X -> Y occurs

Y requires Z

therefore.. most Z?

therefore quality of X = quality of Z

A: everyone - disqualified

B: not flawed

C: not flawed

D: most X -> Y

Y requires Z

therefore most Z = most X

E: most X -> Y

Y requires Z

therefore most subset of X = Z

i actually find the distinction between D and E very hard.

the conclusions are the only differing thing

most people have vivid imaginations (flaw: thinking that since most X -> Y, that most people are X)

most people with vivid imaginations must find plot disturbing. (flaw: thinking that just becuase prerequisite of Z fulfilled, X occurs)

so i guess the issue is E is suff/necc confusion.

D is a subset confusion.

i think the original is also subset confusion?

TAKEAWAY: parallel flaw, horror novels.

• try to articulate what the flaw is, then identify the parallel flaw.

• when choosing between two parallels flaws, see which one matches the flaw you articulated for the stim.

picked C intially. saw onBR itws wrong.

realized that it must be A becuase the park ranger is arguing for a specific conclusion, and C does not supporot the conclusion but the logic behind their conclusion or premises. it doesnt say anything about not citing people. so it must be A.

TAKEAWAY: in justify questions, the correct answer must justify conclusion, not any other point that isnt part of conclusion.

picked D over A because I thought A was too obvious. dumb as hell. i also thought that the correct answer can be an inverse of the logic, but thats not true

TAKEAWAY:

• in parallel questions, the right answer cannot be presented as an inverse. it must match as it is.

IF YOU PICKED A LIKE ME, here's why I think we got it wrong.

picked A initially. i thought it put the issues of productivity would be correctly put onto another cause and weaken the arguemnt. apparently it was wrong in BR. KNOWING THAT, i picked D in BR.

I still think A may have been a viable answer if it wasnt for D being stronger. I don't think the explanation for why A is wrong is helpful: "it doesnt suggest computers might help" - we dont have to suggest that to weaken the answer. we have to show that .. ah i see.. I think i misread the conclusion

increased CT -> probably not prod growth by doing so

to weaken we have to show the opposite here, not negate it as "its not CTs fault." because its not saying "got worse" just "unaffected"

in that case A would definitely be wrong. I misinterpeted the conclusion

TAKEAWAY:

• idenitfy conclusion. if its X does not affect Y, then to weaken it we have to show it DOES affect Y and more specifically in that way it says it does not.

• we have to assume the answers were being given are true. that means that even if it seems to contradict the premises, we still must see it as true. thats what kept me from picked D intially tho I saw it as a strong answer.

for 23: genuinely dont know why I picked C over B. may have misread it. i just didnt register what was occuring in the passages as "scientific research" or maybe i was fatigued.

i love it! gives me a good idea of how im fluctuating. i take drills instead of preptests when im pressed for time some weeks so it gives me a better understanding of how my goal score is coming along.

Picked E, but was unsure. I cancelled out A B and C as irrelevant without thinking too hard so I thought it was between D and E. I realized D was irrelevant. so I picked E by POE, but was still uncomfortable with it. i didnt understand how it would link.

on BR it was marked, and I realized it was B

TAKEAWAY:

• dont cancel out answers right away

• when you feel like the only remaining answers are bad, look at the ones you cancelled out

• recognize alternative explanations. think about how an answer may offer another reason against it.

• dont impose meaning on an answer if its the only one you see and youres not comfortable with it.

i fucking hate how bad i misread the answer C. fell for the easiest trick in the book.

Skipped over the phrase "had not come in contact with the bacteria" and picked A since I didn't take that into account. E seemed like a possibility to me, but I didn't consider it bc A sounded stronger.

TAKEAWAY:

• if there are two strong answers, try to reread stim to see if one of them is disqualified.

@sxphs id like confirmation on that too.

I was between B and C but overthinking it made me go "oh dont i have to kick up conditionals in weaken Qs also"

answer: no i dont.