1/5 on actual but 4/5 on BR, it's the damn anxiety of being under pressure unfortunately...

And here I thought A was damn there a slam dunk 🫪

This question is a mind twister bruh

D was talking to me like the green goblin mask bruh smh

Easy work

@jaydenca Chat actually just helped me on this confusion:

The past event is being used as the justification for a present policy, not as a replacement for it.

Makes wayyy more sense now :-)

D makes great sense. The only part I was tripped up on is the "in the past" part. For the most part, the stimulus is speaking in the present tense...

4/5 on actual and BR. I played myself right out of a clean sweep but it's all good

Being able to break the rule down in this particular way is golden.

@jaydenca Nvm J.Y. answered my question in 7:14-7:19 of the video lol

Question:

Leading up to this question in the curriculum, we're told to take PSA questions as stronger types of Strengthen questions. However, the subsequent rule for Vandenburg's argument was not nearly as strong as other types of PSA questions we've done leading up to this part of the curriculum.

Is coming with rules for these arguments supposed to be based on our intuition or does it just depend on what the context of the argument/rule is?

This question was very simple for me and it boiled down to these things that I have not consistently done leading up to this part of the curriculum:

Continue to actively read the premises, recognize the conclusion, and just match the rule to the stimulus. Because PSA questions are a stronger version of Strengthen questions than regular ones, it's a higher threshold than just pushing the level of support a little over the spectrum.

Be comfortable with the boring answer unless one appears to match the premises and conclusion better.

"Relevance is based on whether the dissimilarity mentioned has a causal impact on the analogy". A good thing to point out about reasoning by analogy questions.

My dumb ahh tried to gas A up like it was the prize of the year when whole time I was set on B bro......

I don't understand how D is an alternative explanation tbh

@HenryStauch422 😂

3/5 then 5/5, we're getting there!

I def fell for the trap and chose A. RRE questions are honestly my hardest questions because the full phenomenon always tends to trap me. I feel lke conditional logic is easier because you can map out what the stimulus is saying, but here you have to pay attention a little more imo.

This update pmo and the fact that this is the LSAT's general interface is nasty work. Why are we making something that is already hard MORE difficult?

I picked C on the actual and E on the BR. I blanked on whether we swap conjunctives that are in the necessary condition to the sufficient condition after contraposing them. That's what I ended up doing, which led to me choosing the wrong answer. Now I have to go back and see how to contrapose conjunctives in the necessary condition 😢

YESSSSSSSSSSS, I GOT TS RIGHT BOYYYYYY. LEVEL 5 AT THAT!!!!

I had to read back some of the foundational lessons to not confuse myself of how the grammar parsing worked within the stimulus and the answer choices

Nah this question GOTTT ITTT LMAOOO

And go straight into hunting mode I DID AYEEE

It took me longer than it should've because I second-guessed myself, but I got it right lol.

In the last lesson, J.Y. said, "At some point (towards the end of the road), you're going to look at the stimulus and know how to map out the conditional logic in your head and immediately go hunting. It's about timing; progressively, it should be something that's thought about. You're trading confidence for time, or in other words, you're tolerating risk to gain time. To better facilitate your ability to do that, your fundamentals in logic need to be strong"

This question further proved this point to me. For others who feel the same way as I do, continue going through the curriculum until you're at a good point to start doing consistent PTs and drills!

I hope that helps someone, as it has just helped me! 🙂