"So the Honey Bees are back." YEAH. Noticed that.

(Backstory: got crushed by a Honey Bees comparative on Jan LSAT. Good times.)

Wait, did you make a typo? I'm not sure myself either!

You wrote that the correct negation of “rational not to acquire such info” is “not rational to acquire such info”. I believe you meant to write “not rational not to acquire such info”.

I'm basing this on your analogous example where you negated “happy not to see you” as “not happy not to see you”.

My brain is now officially tangled up, but let me know if I'm on the right track.

Agree with above. You should build up your mental muscle memory, which helps with being able to handle the stress and fatigue over 4 sections. GL!

Oh, no worries. I read the question perfectly well and yet still went 0-2 on this one!

Hey, so your comment has intrigued me and has totally twisted my mind up, but I think you're right in suspecting that the “additional cost to complete project” was not referring to the portion that exceeds budget but the remaining amount between the cost of project ($12) and the amount already spent ($3), which would be $9. In this case, your initial spend of $3 wouldn't qualify for the situation (I assume we'd need to have already spent at least $9.01)

At a high level, I auto-ignored the context sentence about the project being over budget. I don't know the initial budget, so I just focused on hunting for my P>C, which came after.

I feel like this hasn't helped at all lol, but I'm going to keep my eye on this thread. Maybe someone with more expertise can clarify Beaver's initial read.

The LSAT writers offering us two suffiency-necessity confusion wrong answer choices tripped me out. Never seen that.

Great answer. Just wanted to clarify for other readers that there are only two premises. Conclusion > P1 > P2. Read the above commenters numbering as P1 and P2, not P2 and P3.

Some decent sinthy ambient music to go along with a pair of young cheetahs getting their first catch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXDPWxVhVRU

Wow, I really thought I was getting a good deal all these years.

Another discrepancy with (A): the stimulus says "damaged the health of..." while (A) says "seriously damaged"

E just totally froze me lol. It's such an insignificant answer choice that it actually messes with my mind lol.

Hi Brian, I initially was confused as well. I've never seen an N.A. question dressed up as an S.A. like this. Very tough one.

Here's Lexshah's answer below:

"You’re correct that typically “properly drawn” is used in SA questions, but this specific question stem asks, “Which of the following principles must be assumed…,” which implies necessity. If it were an SA question, it would read something like, “Which one of the following principles, if assumed, would allow for the psychologist’s conclusion to be properly drawn?”"

Not directly answering your Q, but wanted to say: keep studying for more months and that 160 will come.

The ol' 40-minuter. Yikes!

Feeling kinda stupid here but I did not know people chose whether to see a generalist or specialist. When I read the stimulus I assumed they were randomly treated by whichever one was available or assigned to them. I'm not from US and this may have affected my bias. Or maybe I just don't know a lot about this topic lol.

Tough question. Wow. Nice explanation, JY.

Agree lol.

Quick correction:

(If you want to conclude) /rf-cool, then = (either failing rf-heat or /region-high-sum-hum)

Should be:

/rf-cool (either failing rf-heat or region-high-sum-hum)

(If I have misread, my advanced apologies, but pretty sure this was a typo)

JY, this was an awesome explanation. Really well done, thank you!

Curious to see how many stars this one becomes. 0/2 on both first try and blind review. Just could not solve this. Had I just came in and said "remember to be on the lookout for a chain-up" then I probably would have seen it. Instead, I froze!

Getting #3 wrong was akin to a long, tough look in the mirror.

Cheers, buddy! Yep, keep positive and keep grinding! It'll come, it just takes time.

It would be awesome to hear an admissions consultant's view on this, or @dancingchicken111498, I would ask this question to law schools during Forums/zoom events.

This is only my intuition not based on fact, but it would seem rather extreme for a candidate to be rejected based on, in this case, an addendum explaining a 170-164 drop off. (Or perhaps the above-referenced Dean's opinion is indeed reflective of many others. I'm really not sure.) Great question, and congrats on that 170.