This just seems like a stupid answer like if I was talking to a real life adjunct professor at my college and this stimulus was stated word for word I'd be like you need to get a drink and chill tf out and relax because in real life 1) nothing guarantees you a promotion, ever, until you actually get it. 2) of course you think the book about to be important and well written it's your own damn book! And even still, none of that made since in the context of an inference question because I thought we were just evaluating all the FACTS presented in the stimulus, I mentally don't even know what to grasp onto first to start analysis and I promise I wasn't approaching the question with real world logic bias but it was like my brain had nothing to start with A was absolutely crossed out first but it's right?! It's like all the rules change based on what the exact question is. I knew C and D were irrelevant and wrong. Only B and E felt reasonable. Ughhh

I came up with an example that helps me understand why sufficient and necessary conditions are so hard to understand, the literal meanings of sufficient and necessary are never used in real life usually. Think about a bride picking a wedding venue.

A sufficient wedding venue, even though a real life bride would never say "this venue is, sufficient" like a robot because she'd real say "i love it omg it's beautiful it has everything we WANT (not just what we need)" - the sufficient venue is the one that actually gets picked the decor or the setting or the menu or location TRIGGERS the picking of the sufficient venue, it is actually sufficient in the literal sense of the word.

The neccessary wedding venue in the literal sense of the word JUST has what's needed at the absolute minimum like a dance floor, running water, toilets, catering package, that's it "we got what we need, we'll make do" but in real life we often describe major wants like in house bar, cheap delicious food, the best dj in town on staff as "OMG I NEED TO HAVE THIS VENUE IT'S A NECESSITY BABE PLEASE PLEASE PICK IT." But in the literal and logical sense, we are often using these words in opposition to their textbook meanings.

I was so annoyed the answer wasn't B but after more analysis I realized that "only if" closes the door on the Coffee Shoppe's profitability not decreasing no matter what they do. The earlier part of the stimulus spends all this time setting up fluff for you to focus on like if it was a real business, but the final statement just states their only way to keep profitability from going down is for coffee bean prices to stay down.

What can be so disorienting about LSAT stimuli is the way statements just plop out of nowhere but would make sense in another context. It helps me to create a little fake context to actually comprehend statements. Like #5 is hard to understand at first glance as a comparative but would make sense, naturally, in a news articles about an energy company asking customers to cut back on heating usage during a major winter storm, like.. "After ERCOT's urging of customers to turn down thermostats to avoid power grid overload....."

@jaypring Coming back to say I lied and this is very hard the more you study.

Lol they really want to make sure you absolutely want to become a lawyer if you're taking this test

I would never get this right on the real test because just for the sake of understanding this crazy stimulus I read it like 10 times and then finally selected an answer after like 6 minutes lol

I'm sorry, if this question is the reason I get a 169 instead of a 170, I will just simply never score that high then lol. I just cannot see myself picking anything other than D.

Read this stimulus too fast, I totally glazed over the last phrase "such as likening society to a family," once I re-read it after initially choosing C, the correct answer choice, A, totally makes sense ughhh you have to stay mentally locked in the entire test.

@jmoommen7103 this helps a lot.

Okay, I didn't realize how important that word NOW is when originally choosing "C"

This really helps with getting rid of jargon in test questions that take up too much brain power. I am bad with focusing on words that don't really hit at the core of the argument so I have blocked them out by just focusing on the "kernel" in the question.

@jaypring What's working for me is: reading the question and highlighting what I think it is explicitly asking me to identify, reading the stimulus while making sure to highlight/segregate what I think is the conclusion, then reading the answer choices last and doing the process of elimination.

For me, even thinking about any answer choices before I delve into the stimulus and really dissect it is mental overload.

3/3. I'm about to make this test my b____.

@isabellagirjikian i like to read the question first to get a sense of what i'm really looking to answer, then read the stimulus, then read the answer choices. i deliberately try to make sure I am highlighting the conclusion in the stimulus and premises different colors.

@SeedyN You're a genius and whatever law firm, district attorney's office, or legal department hires you in 3 years will be better off for it.

@Kellbell206 The rule "don't use outside information" applies to conclusions and reasoning, not to basic background facts that any reasonable person would accept without question.

The LSAT has always operated with an implicit assumption that you're a rational, informed adult. "Tigers are mammals" falls into that category, it's not a debatable inference, it's just simply A fact.

Whereas the second assumption about aggressiveness and unsuitability is something we can debate and people may disagree on. They do it in such a slick way you don't even realize. The LSAT does this constantly, they dress up a debatable assumption in very matter-of-fact language so you don't notice the gap.

@NoraElkhyati Only assume what the TEST tells you plainly, even if it is non-sensical. Don't apply what you already know from a science or history class in high school or college. Use the stimulus/text of the test only to pick answers.

It's intentionally confusing and antithetical to everything you've been taught to do on a test in school.

The LSAT is about pure logical reasoning and not about the actual content you are reading about.

Oh my God..... I get it. THE REAL WORLD LOGIC DOES NOT MATTER. LSAT logic exists in a vaccuum, of course some real life context and knowledge is used but the test wants you to find the assumptions that support or negate a premise and conclusion.

@jaypring I know that it is, but it just feels so tricky.

Questions 1 and 2 were very hard for me because my brain wants to say that the statements "A recent study found that...." is going to give me valid, truthful and objective information. I totally understood the premise and conclusions in the following questions but it's like I don't want to believe that something that feels like straight recitation of facts could be a real argument.