You can POE your way to the right AC here pretty easily. That's what I relied under time.

The other ACs are either not mentioned in the STIM or matters of degree/comparatives which we are looking for VERY definitive logic here to PROVE the conclusion.

Same. This entire PT 156 is BRUTALLLLLL!!!!

To make you feel better, after getting crushed by section 2 the first LR section, I just stopped this PT after this passage and took a long walk and then finished the PT the next day. I had enough.

This PT has so much formal logic since it's the most recent one from July of 2020. I'd say this will be most like actual test day since without logic games, I've heard there is way more formal logic on the LR sections which both of these LR sections had so much mapping that I was rusty and blew it.

I'm used to getting like -2 or -3 on LR sections and took that for granted (pun intended) and got -5 wrong on both of these LR sections which crushed my confidence where I took another 3 days in a row off just to recover.

Anyway, find solace that you're not alone in thinking the above.

This passage is VERY hard to follow and kind of all over the place. No definitive structure like other harder passages especially since it's author shitting on other peoples "views/accounts of the origins of bebop."

Then author goes into an analogy with classical music.

Then finally makes his point at the very end.

This one is brutal and it took 12 minutes to do.

I ended up going with educated guesses on 3 of the 8 questions and I'm stoked that I only got 2 of 8 wrong.

The ones I got wrong were also the easiest questions! Hate when that happens!

Also, the content is super boring (at least to me) so that makes these WAYYYYY harder.

Upon BR though, I was able to see everything better.

NOTE: when tough passages like this pop us (and they inevitably will on the real test), what helps me is to STAY calm, and really TAKE MY time in understanding the passage. Like spend the majority of time on the passage and cut time from the questions if needed or depending on your goal score, SKIP a couple of these questions and take the loss.

One thing I've found is the WORST thing to do is to panic and RUSH through the passage. That's a sure way to get like 6/8 wrong versus, spending time on the passage and truly understanding it, at least you'll be able to rip though the questions much easier and hopefully faster and even if you have to skip 2/8 then that's 2 potentially wrong vs 6 wrong in hypothetical above.

Hey all! Kind of late to the post but if you are still meeting up in LA for the June exam would love to join! LMK! Please hit me up!

THIS IS seriously such a messed up question. Like hardest on this test IMO. I still don't understand WTF is happening and it's only 3 star.

I picked D bc I thought "circumstances is vague enough. But I didn't have a good feeling about it.

I was SURE A, B, and C were wrong and then when I read E I was like no way.

SO I POE my way to D instead.

WOW.... BRUTAL.

They are obsessed with Except questions on these new PTs.

SO tricky. They distract you with a conditional and you're thinking it's going to chain up or fail sufficient as the flaw like normal.

Then, in reality, it doesn't really chain or link up. While you're spinning your wheels trying to chain it up, they hide a simple belief vs fact flaw and make it even more confusing with some really abstract concept.

Man, these very new PTs really turn the difficulty up in my opinion. This whole entire PT especially section 4 is BRUTAL!!!!!!

WHAT A TIME SINK!!!!!!! Such and easy question. Such dicks LSAC putting this as question 5 and making it the longest and most convoluted question with the correct AC as E.

Doesn't surprise me.

I've noticed that in these newer PTs, they throw weird and really long questions at the very beginning of the section. Really throws my flow off so need to be prepared for that.

Dude. I know this is 3 years late.

But DAMN bro, you're f-ing HILARIOUS! You're comments on EVERYTHING make my day. Hope you're crushing law school bro! I'm sure you're almost done by now if that's the direction you decided to stick with!

9- didn't pick B on the grounds it said aquatic furbearer.

AC D is also a necessary assumption.

Which technically is still a strengthen question. NA is just a subset of Strengthen. D HAS TO BE TRUE to conclude what they do.

4/6 and I will take that ALL day on this brutal passage!

15 and 19 absolutely no way. Just take the L.

I almost got 16 wrong but was able to effectively use POE to my benefit. I had E selected, but realized it you have no idea whether or not US and Canada recognize interest of public authorities! Way too tough to support so then just picked A and moved on. 180 curve breaker here we go!!!

I am a CPA and consider myself pretty damn good with numbers and shit like this.

AND... I STILL HAD NO FUCKING idea they're assuming a weighted average here.

Had time at the end and literally blew 3.5 minutes on this shit and still had no clue.

Then to find out it's a 3 star 156 curve had me laughing out loud.

Good way to efficiently get through this question is just to POE your way through it. E doesn't jump out at you therefore, go one by one and it's honestly pretty easy to rule the others out.

That's how I got this right. I spent way to long though deliberating on it.

This is tricky due to all the extra fluff they throw in there as distractions.

THE key is to prephrase this and notice they're they may be talking about different sets of cancers and birth defects. They talk about cancers in general in beginning and the P supporting the C talks about "since most cancers."

Then the rest of the argument is fluff to further distract you.

Surprised this is only a 3 star since even JY had to skip and come back.

If you go into the ACs without prephrasing the predicting the general direction of the flaw, then you're screwed since one thing I've really learned, is that going into the ACs with no idea of the grasp of the STIM is a dead end since the ACs are NOT your friend as JY loves to say!

Omg I thought pattern in AC C meant literally like the paint patterns! LOL

Like were they diagonal, or wide parking spots, or compact ones. LOL

This question gets easy once you figure out it's a negated conditional and that the right AC which is D, just says the negated conditional of the actual example in a very obscure and roundabout way, as is such and often occurs in very tough 5 star curve breakers.

NOTE: you can have logic and mapping in an NA question and whenever they say a conditional and that "it's not the case" or "it's mistaken" or something along those lines, that means they're trying to negate it.

When you remember that, questions like this and others will be come easier and you'll be able to really cut through the abstract nature of this question by focusing on the logic.

This took me a bit to get, but totally get it now!

Got 12 wrong bc couldn't remember what eschewed meant!

I didn't pick it bc "set her apart from her contemporaries!"

So much you have to assume in this one! I'm so surprised you see this question actually made it on the real scored section and not just the experimental! Normally, you only see BS questions like this on the experimental section.

Agree with lots of the comments below. First time, I've seen a disagree EXCEPT and I caught that but then when going through the ACs, I blew so much time being like "no I have to make an assumption there." Then, I realized that the only way to get this right is I have to make a little bit of assumptions and I ended up picking the right AC which is C at the end but not after A LOT of time.

This is the most genius question that really tests your understanding of conditional logic.

I was able to get right by a combo of intuition and POE.

But practicing mapping this out literally TESTS every single advanced logic concept with the exception of needing to use DeMorgan's Law.

I would freeze up even trying to map this all out under timed, but just practicing this out in BR is soooooo CRITICAL. If you fully understand this logic here, you are a logic master and literally have every skill available at your disposal to even get the most complex logic questions right.

This is definitely the hardest PURE LOGIC question I've seen and I've been studying for months and have done like 2,000 questions so far just in practice.

Agreed. That's the small difference.

Like WHAT THE ACTUAL F*!!!

This ENTIRE SECTION WAS HELL.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that felt that way if you scan below and just see comments and notice HOW MANY LIKES the ones saying this same thing got! Like 50-60 likes! LOL.

I can't believe I got 7 wrong during timed. Right now, I'm normally like -3 sometimes -4, sometimes -2 on an LR section.

I literally was done for the day after doing this section and went straight to bed to reset myself as I questioned my entire life. LOL.

Now that I've shaken myself off, I'm Wrong Answer Journaling these 7 dreadful questions I got wrong.

I was 15/15 the first 15 questions. and then I got 5 out of the last 6 questions wrong!

And even the curve on those questions all were like 172+ which is SOOOO rare to have that many 172+ curves in one section! Typically, you have like 3 of those and the rest of the 5 star and 4 star questions are in the 160 curves.

WOW.... Is it just me or are some of these newer PTs just brutal in terms of HOW long the questions and ACs are!

Like questions 1-10 were SOOOO LONG and really made me second guess myself so much with SOOO many attractive wrong ACs and so many distracting elements in the STIMs.

Please comment if you felt the same way about this section! I'm sure it'll make the others in the future who do this section at least a little at ease knowing they're not the only ones. Especially the higher scorers which are so used to crushing it.

Man like so many of the older comments from like 10 years ago have personally helped me so much so just trying to pay it forward!

Don't like JYs explanation here. It really confused me.

Better like this and more following the framework we've been taught vs just rule checking like JY does.

1) unless gets rid of the not in should not

FTBoardM should be on FC-> ACCT or SUPPORTED

2) this is the important part. Scan the ACs and see what they're concluding. most of them are concluding FTBoardM should NOT be on FC.

Therefore, let's get that condition (which is sufficient right now) into the Necessary condition by taking the contrapositive.

3) Since there's currently a disjunction (OR) in the NECESS we have to use demorgans which is just negate both and put an AND on there.

Therefore:

/ACCT AND /Supported-> FTBoardM should NOT be on FC

4) AC D is only one that does this but they do it in a tricky convoluted way.

a) They say Klein should not be allowed as the conclusion (CHECK!)

b) Not an ACCOUNTANT (CHECK!)

c) this is where they mess with you a little. they say IF anyone opposes meaning NOT SUPPORTED. But rather than explicitly saying Klein is NOT SUPPORTED like they did for the NOT ACCOUNTANT part they just put a conditional on it with IF (which is showing hypothetically). This in a hypothetical situation YES does ALSO trigger the NOT SUPPORTED part.

IN SUMMARY:

You got everything you need! CHECK, CHECK , MATE bitches!

FURTHER THOUGHTS:

I'm SO surprised this isn't at least a 4 star here. LIKE WTF look at all of the hurdles you have to jump through.

YOU HAVE TO BE VERY FLUENT IN LOGIC which after countless practice problems I now am. Logic used to be my weakest area. I didn't even know what a contrapositive was before studying for this test since I'm a Business Econ and Accounting Major!.

I skipped and saved for RD 2 and it really threw me off that question # 6 was this gnarly so I thought I must be missing something! BUT NOTE to self, they will throw any shit at you to throw off your flow and that's exactly what this question did for me especially being that early on! Normally I'd expect to see this like question 16 at least!

Anyway this is super easy for me now. ONLY AFTER getting very fluent and quick in formal logic. You just have to KEEP on doing new questions bc you see the patterns of their tricks over time.

So if you're new to studying and are like WTF I QUIT after seeing this type of stuff, DON'T be discouraged! JUST keep on pressing on!

The hardest part of this test was initially the formal logic part and now I feel like a whiz and can honestly just take contrapositives and negate sufficient and necessary conditions in my head and often don't have to write it out for the easier ones.

KEEP PUSHING to you early studiers! This question would've terrified me early on and now it's one of the easiest.

SO JY is right, use formal logic fluency to your advantage.

Got this right in BR. Was actually easy once I took the time to ACTUALLY PROCESS what each AC is really saying since these are really tricky ACs with comparatives.

You just always need to ANCHOR yourself to the conclusion and see how the premises the the premises support it and then it's easier to see the gaps.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one that didn't first catch that it was domesticated crop plants in general in the conclusion until AC C clued me in! JY didn't either!

I was beating myself up for that that I wasn't being careful enough while reading. LOL.

NOTE: need to be not so hard on myself!

Dude this question is straight BS to map it out and jump through all those hurdles and literally the FIRST time I've seen you able to take part of a conjunctive condition and make it satisfy that condition! This is probably super rare but going to keep in the back of my head.

I got this right during BR just by thinking of it intuitively. It's pretty easy to see the gap and I just looked for those ideas which A and D were.

During timed I chose D only on the grounds that it had the IMPORTANT and WELL WRITTEN there. But during BR, I realized that D is suff and necc confusion therefore the other way around when you take the contrapositive.

I'm not going to get too hung up on this one here.