cooked alive

Hey guys on the actual LSAT there are no questions this easy tbh. Like it is usually about a 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 split between level 3, 4 and 5 questions. I have pulled a 178 and 179 on practice tests but got a 167 in February

Anytime legal jargon is used im cooked is that a bad sign

math in da LSAT fo today

4 minutes of brain stewing and then vibe-checked D

cooked

5/5 on most difficult, and I used to hate this question type, as it was undoubtedly my worst. Literally I was cooked on these.

Key Takeaways:

1. Find the conclusion. It is usually super easy in this question type's stimuli

2. Find how they are justifying the conclusion. Usually there is one single premise sentence that is the key to this.

3. Think about how you are bridging the gap between the conclusion and the premise you found. What is your brain doing to justify why the premise ensures the conclusion? If you read a stimuli and think "damn this seems bulletproof to me", you missed it. Your goofy little brain made the assumption without you even realizing it.

Don't fall for it, there is always something wrong with these arguments in the stimuli.

4. In the answers, you will usually be able to narrow it down to 2 good looking ones. Once you are there, negate them both. If the argument could still stand after the negation, it isn't right.

5. Remember, "none" or "no" is the negation to "some" or "any"

If it makes you guys feel better the real LSAT is like 25% NA questions in LR. It's awful lmao.

As long as the LSAT writers use subtle differences in language to make me

incorrectly assume that "those looking online for medical info" and "those looking online to self-diagnose their own medical condition" are the same people I will hate them with all my heart lmao.

My pick, A, was a bad call though. The correct NA answer will rarely have a proportion/probability word like "most".