#feedback That speed mumble that JY does when reading the stimulus doesn't help me understand it better.

Nothing better than getting it wrong during the timed section, changing your answer during blind review and getting it wrong again.

Can I get a half a point for the second best answer s'il vous plaît?

Made the mistake of making "Fortunately, investment is not decreasing" as the conclusion.

1/6 on MBF problem set 2 and this was the only one I got right and actually 22 seconds faster than target time. There's hope!

.

I don't think this is right.

#Help So is the right answer right because plankton are not fish? Or sucking on Plankton is not a form of preying?

or is other fishes not named plankton and food particles in mud.

I got the answer right but my diagram looked like

B←s→P→/U18→LV

I told myself if AC A is right I'll be pissed. Don't understand how this is a must be true question. We can infer that A could be the case, but i'm having trouble seeing how it must be the case.

None of these questions have to make sense, they just have to logically follow or in others words be valid. We aren't judging the soundness of the argument in SA.

I would say trying to diagram this is pretty difficult and is probably why I & some others got it wrong.

I wish this was question 5 and not question 1

I confused myself because wrote I for imperfect when I should've put it as /I.

Hopefully this helps someone. After writing out the argument you should get

All cattle ranchers dislike long winters: CR → /LW

All ski resort owners like long winters: SO → LW (Contrapositive /LW → /SO)

Some cattle ranchers are lawyers: L←s→CR

When put together it should look like: L←s→CR→/LW→/SO

So the question states which one of the following IF TRUE and ADDED to the statement above most supports the conclusion that NO ski resorts owners are lawyers

So when reading what I write it says some Lawyers are Cattle ranchers and CR dont like winter and if you don't like winter you are not a ski resort owner.

So immediately I told myself what if the some claim would turn in a conditional (L→)

That would strengthen this argument even more. because it is only saying some lawyers.... So I went down to the answer choice to see if any answer does that and C did.

L→CR→/LW→/SO

.

Same. I looked up rebate during BR and only then did I knew what being said.

The "If valid" helps. Which of the following "if true/valid", most strongly supports the... tells you is not an MSS question.

Not that it really matters, but I think you are in the reverse splitters category since your GPA is high and LSAT is average. This is just my personal opinion, but if your ambitions are to go to a T14 law school or top law school - That high GPA may masquerade your average LSAT score if you graduated from a top school or a majored in something that is known to be difficult. But, the LSAT score is still the most important piece of the application. Also "average" is a tricky word, because I heard people calling themselves splitters/reverse splitters and they have 3.5/172 or 3.8/166 LSAT scores. From the college admission conversations that I've been apart of those folks are considered in the great scores side more than "splitters" side.

I know this is 3 months old, but still want to reply for those who may have the same confusion. Words like Only, Only If, Only Where... are necessary word indicators that tell you what comes after is the necessary condition and not the sufficient condition.

so for example: if you are a superior champion, then you have mastery techniques.

That is the same as: Only if you have mastery techniques, then you are a superior champion.

But is not the same as A: Only if you are a champion, then you have a superior mastery of technique.

It is wrong because it puts Champion in the necessary condition and not sufficient.

Another simpler way of thinking of it is

If A happens then B will happen.

So whenever A happens B happens

But that is not the same as if B happens then A will happen

B can happen without A, but A cannot activate/happen without not activating B.

Congrats on your achievements. I am surprised with your philosophy background LG is your biggest struggle. I was a Phil student in college and LG is very similar to the logic classes I took. I would even go a step further and say it's easier. Also, I think 7 sage is best in helping with LG - better than any book that I've used. Also, I think it is accurate to state that if you were to get everything wrong in LG and get everything right in every other section, you'll have around a 158 score.

Same

I got this answer right. But I feel like on a real exam where you might not know whether it's not clear whether its strengthen or weaken question you should try to look for an answer that would weaken Lee's and/or strengthen Kim. Is this a wrong way of going about it?

#help (Added by Admin)

interested