A(----) B and this B(---)A are the same. A biconditional can be read forward or backward. As someone who didn't study logic in school, I found it helpful to look up real world examples online and then come up with my own examples that apply to my everyday life. You wrote the contrapositive statement correctly. I hope this helps.

I'm interested

I'm interested. Is there a group chat yet? Thanks.

Did you see something somewhere that makes some sort of distinction between the two? As far as I know, they're the same thing. You can use either term. With a false dichotomy, aka false binary, only 2 options are presented and all other possible options are ignored.

You’re right that problems 1 and 2 lead to problem 3. I think your misinterpretation of part of the stimulus led you astray with the answers. The stimulus says there was "excessive irrigation," so there was too much water. Nothing in the stimulus translates to "wheat production requires too much water.”

B (correct answer): Helps explain why barley increased and wheat declined. The salt accumulation isn’t as much of an issue for the barley compared to the wheat. It’s helpful to remember that the salt accumulation is the consequent problem of excessive irrigation and lack of drainage. So if the ultimate issue that resulted, salt accumulation, is addressed, you don't need to address the other two separately here.

A (wrong answer): This comparison is irrelevant to the historian’s argument. This answer implies wheat wasn’t receiving enough water; however, we know that there was actually too much water (excessive irrigation).

In NYC. Can meet up.

When you hover over WSE, it doesn't provide the full label. Admin needs to fix that. From looking at a few RC questions with this label, I would assume WSE stands for "Weaken/Strengthen."

Example WSE question stems from preptests-

Which one of the following would, if true, most strengthen the author's position

Which one of the following would, if true, most seriously

undermine the author’s conclusion

Which one of the following would, if true, strengthen the

position

@drewescc613 Science stimuli can sometimes be hard to wrap your head around. If, according to the skeptics, coal deposits are giving false dates for the deepest and oldest levels, the same would have to be true for the middle and upper levels. The skeptics only mention having an issue with dates of the deepest and oldest levels. What about all the other sample levels/dates? This coal deposit issue should also make the upper level appear older than it is as well. However, we're told the upper level corresponds to the present time. I hope that helps.

This was a tough question. With weaken questions, remember to focus on weakening the connection between the premises and the conclusion. I didn't understand this concept at first, but once I did, my performance with with weaken questions significantly improved. I think of it as making the premises less relevant to the conclusion so you now have less reason to believe the conclusion. You're telling the author that the premises they provided don't lead you straight to their conclusion.

Of note, the stimulus doesn't say that smoking was the only way they preserved meat. No language in the stimulus gives that restriction. Also, notice the author doesn't have a high level of certainty about the conclusion. He uses the word "probably." The only reason we should believe they were smoking meat is because they had a fire around that was much better at producing smoke over heat/light. That's it! The author is assuming that smoking meat is the only reason they would burn this high smoke fire. For weaken questions, it helps to focus more on the assumptions the author makes to reach their conclusion (not so much the conclusion). The right answer tends to attack an assumption the author is making. This is why you have to be careful about eliminating answers that seem out of scope at first glance for this question type.

A - You said "this suggests they also used heat." Do you mean use heat to preserve food? I would say heat would cook food, not preserve it. This answer doesn't weaken the argument. It introduces another type of fire instead of focusing on the lichen and grass fire. I can't say how this new fire relates to the argument.

B - weakens because it provides an alternative explanation. It introduces the possibility that they were using the lichen and grass fires for something else - heat and light. Lichen and grass were the best plants they had around at the time to burn for heat and light. This answer makes the fact that this fire produces a lot of smoke less significant which makes it less likely they were burning this fire specifically to smoke meat.

It's normal to have some jitters while testing. What's important is to have stragies for managing that. Only you can determine what works best for you. It would helpful to do a more specific analysis of your mistakes and develop strategies to avoid them. Look at things like misreads, mistakes diagramming rules, incorrect inferences that are over or under inclusive, the types of questions you tend to make a mistake on, etc. The more you avoid these mistakes in practice, the higher your confidence will be which should reduce the jitters. Stay positive about your ability to perfect the section (you're so close) and keep practicing. You'll get there before you know it.

Is your time for games you've done before improving with foolproofing? Foolproofing should help improve your timing over the long haul. It will make you faster at making inferences. Since there are only so many game types, set up patterns and rule connections will repeat over and over.

Don't overthink it. Just stop doing LG.

Why not? It is a test of language. If it's something you enjoy studying, keep it going. You can study/learn anything purely for enjoyment and self-development.

"It" is the referential language. What does "it" refer to? The opening question in the stimulus. You can replace the referential language like this - [The position of a car's seat] probably does [have a significant impact on driving safety].

Take another look at the sentence. You're mistaken in pulling a conditional statement from this. No conditional reasoning present. Therefore, I, personally, would not use the kick it up to the domain technique here. I would leave it as is and see what the rest of the argument says.

You got it! Yes, that works, too! The explanation goes into detail about this.

I think of this as deciding which domain (world/conditions/situation) the conditional rule applies to. The conditions you don't expect to change or be an issue for the argument are pulled out of the chain and kicked up to the domain. You just have to remember what "world" your simplified conditional statement applies to. Doing this simplifies the conditional statement which should increase your speed and ease in analyzing the argument and reviewing the answers. If calling it "kick it up to the domain" doesn't vibe with you (it doesn't for me), just call it something else. I hope that helps.

This is not changing. LSAC website states you have the option to go to a test center or test remotely.

Although the first sentence is a conditional statement, it is background information; therefore, it is not critical to understanding the argument. It is not a premise because the statement does not support the conclusion. If you leave out the first sentence, the argument should still make sense to you. You have to be able to recognize background information. This will come with more practice. I hope that helps.

International dates are available on LSAC. International is not available on every test date (no August). In the next testing cycle, LSAC lists October 2024 as the first international test administration. The tests that say "All testing regions" are international. Review the full list for 2024-2025 LSAT Testing Year- https://www.lsac.org/LSATdates#new-TY

@azahthomas661 It would behoove you to reach out to LSAC directly for a legit answer. In situations like this, go straight to the source for clarity and an official answer. I would feel most comfortable proceeding with the instructions LSAC provides. Whatever a peer says here, I would still have to verify with LSAC. So why not just skip the extra step? Don't delay. Contact LSAC today so you can check on his off your list.

Yes, it's exactly the same. This is what JY meant when he said their twins. You can pick either idea to start with. It doesn't matter.

If you haven't taken the LSAT format without the LG section, I suggest doing that. Seeing your score with LR, LR, RC might help you feel more comfortable making a decision. Just based on how many you're missing in LG now, I say plan to take June. Then retake if you're not happy with your score.

You can simplify the contrapositive of your original statement to, "If you live in NYC, then you live in the U.S." I found writing out my own real world examples helpful in solidifying this concept. You can also check YouTube for more examples.

Understanding conditional logic is important for both sections. Improving this skill will help you with questions and both. Understanding the basics of conditional logic should be at the top of your skills list for this test.