Oh yeah I remember this game. Nice find, definitely similar

@sc1293486 said:

@jacquestoupin470 said:

@sc1293486 said:

Do you guys remember whether the LR section with question about a girl sending her application to be considered for an award, and mailing her application within 10 days was an experimental or the actual??

It was real, I had 2 LRs and seen this question.

I remember this one because I thought that amazon prime and the express option was totally going to screw people up

Thanks!! Also wondering if you recall a question about a study done with two groups, one group given a self-help medical book and the other without!!

that sounds familiar

@sc1293486 said:

Do you guys remember whether the LR section with question about a girl sending her application to be considered for an award, and mailing her application within 10 days was an experimental or the actual??

It was real, I had 2 LRs and seen this question.

I remember this one because I thought that amazon prime and the express option was totally going to screw people up

@khanrsonia949 said:

Hi, I'm just wondering, how do people know if a section was real or not? Have the sections been released yet by LSAC?

If someone had 2LGs, then they know that their 2LRs and 1RC were real. someone with 3LRs, 1LG and 1RC would know their LG and RC was real. So people are able to figure out which sections are experimental by talking with other people, who had a different experimental than them

@wrasschaert283 said:

@jacquestoupin470 said:

@wrasschaert283 said:

I thought LR was hard for this test. LG & RC were both fair.

Yeah I agree, I was just nervous for my first section.

@wrasschaert283 said:

predictions on the curve?

-9? LG was pretty easy gotta assume a lot of 0s

i agree on this. but during break, i overheard a lot of people saying LG was hard. so hopefully -10 haha or -11

Bless up

@patriciakim511 said:

So I had LR-LG-LR-RC-LR

I believe Bonbos eating leaves was the first section so that was real? Felt easy. Middle one took much longer to get through than I’m used to, so I’m guessing that’s the expirimental LR? Anyone know?

I had 2 real

LR (25 Questions): Bonobos Monkeys, Evergreen trees Parallel/ Parallel Flaw right at the end

LR (25 Questions): Crux Question about ants making tunnels with specific type of resin. Osteoporosis

LR with 26 questions was experimental

@wrasschaert283 said:

I thought LR was hard for this test. LG & RC were both fair.

Yeah I agree, I was just nervous for my first section.

@wrasschaert283 said:

predictions on the curve?

-9? LG was pretty easy gotta assume a lot of 0s

This really sucks, I'm sorry Bamboo

I haf> @wrasschaert283 said:

@jacquestoupin470-SERIES yes it was the real LG. how did you feel about it? i also had two LG's. my test was LG RC LR break LR LG. i knew the mining was real because they hardly ever put experimental in sections 4-5 (this is just what i've heard) also my first LG was way too easy to not be experimental.

I had 2 LG aswell, I'm so glad the mining section was real. I thought my first section (last game having16,17,18) was pretty tough

I can't really remember LR questions

LR with tunnel was real, and I remember a question with regular mail, and the ACs kept talking about express mail

When I was drilling RC I aimed for 8.5minutes per passage, but once you get more comfortable/familiar with RC in general you will get a better sense of how long to take.

But a good rule of thumb is to take less time on passages with less questions

Even if that were true that is a even bigger assumption, are they living there because of the garbage dump? or do they naturally live everywhere? Do they ever go to the dump?

I think the AC would have to say "Hyenas at the dump harm wild life" but even then its not great because the dump still could harm the wildlife, even if hyenas do too.

B,C, and D are all pretty clear cut cases of harm, and A weakens the evidence

They are actually only talking about one set of critics. The logic makes this question much more clear

View A

View B

View A and B are contradictory

Therefore View A is false

Begs the question, why is A false? why is B not false? How is this conclusion even supported at all?

and D recognizes that the argument is flawed because it provides no support

I personally use /C -> (A->B)

I can't remember which quesiton it is, but JY uses a circle method which I transcribed here

Yeah you've got it. NA,SA, and PSA questions all technically strengthen the argument. The stem could say strengthen, and the correct AC could be a SA AC.

PSA and SA are basically the same thing. SA tends to be more logic heavy, and PSA will blur the lines between terms more than SA. The difference is similar to MBT and MSS

This might be a better "down" themed song to listen to.

I've been beat up, I've been thrown out

But I'm not down, I'm not down

Studying for the LSAT is a test of resilience. We've all been there. Keep it up and push on!

Hey Wavey Boi the stimulus logic is

A→C

B→C

C

therefore B

Flaw: confusing necessary for sufficient

Yes new map would be in the sufficient condition, will is acting as the logic indicator

A) NM → existing and planned

planned

therefore NM

The flaw for A: they ignore that that existing buildings are accounted for by the new map

I've only really heard about the principle of charity. It might be a good question to ask the forum.

Here is the article that talks about it. Its a pretty interesting read, if you are a LSAT nerd

https://lsathacks.com/lsac-responses/

They also mention that whoever is saying the stimulus (eg. administrator, businessman, economist, politician) makes a difference. For example a stimulus about global warming being said by a "Environmental Scientist:" should be considered more credible than "Alt right supporter:" or "Oil tycoon" but that's starting to dig unnecessarily deep

Hey Bamboosprout I agree with you, this AC negation is fairly ambiguous. But the AC does bridge the gap necessary for the argument to be valid.

I think if you contacted the LSAC about this they would probably evoke the principle of charity. I wouldn't even be surprised if they said they didn't believe in the negation technique, or question types lol

Analogous argument:

There is enough food in the United states to feed everyone in the world. Therefore fear of everyone not having enough food is wrong

Catch 22

I had trouble with D as well. I think the difference is is that nonfiction and /nonfiction has a different relationship than business and /business. /nonfiction could mean fantasy or teen fiction, where as /business exclusively means not business. Where C better captures that dichotomy with marketing division and /marketing division eg HR or janitor division.

Hey Logic. Yeah I'd agree with you that the camouflage is better than their sight, even if its said vision is great. Because of the 'generally' premise.

This question is pretty tough. D actually makes the strange behavior even more strange.

If this were a weakening question, E would weaken it

for example

J is a good chef therefore J made these cup cakes

"it is not necessary to be a good chef to make good cup cakes" it doesn't wreck the argument, but it makes us question why we can conclude that. If it were 'sufficient' instead it would destroy the argument.

Co-incidence could be an explanation. But the question is asking how Quincy responds to Phoebe.

Phoebe: Correlation / Causation

Quincy: Skeptical because poor evidence

I do believe that you can infer that "not more than coincidence" to coincidence but the verb in Q's sentence is "skeptical" and the rest of the sentence modifies that. Q is arguing that they are not convinced by their argument, not for another explanation.

Offering another explanation might look more like "it is more plausible that it is coincidence" or "not causation but coincidence" or "coincidence better explains"

Also even if you concede that Q is saying "it is coincidence" Q's premises don't support that statement at all. Support for that might look like "your only evidence is two things happened at once", while if you use the existing evidence "it is coincidence b/c that theory is unsupported" That argument becomes flawed and might be described as "concludes that since the support fails that the conclusion is incorrect"

Hope that helps