I somehow always get High priority questions wrong. Will be going over this in drills a few more times to see if I can get the higher ones correct more consistently

I think what A is trying to get you to do is make that assumption about the phenomenon. But in reality, we have no good reason to be comparing the traffic time of rush hour to the traffic time of other times during the day. Its completely irrelevant and thats why its wrong.

I think its weird that no one is talking about Darwinism and survival of the fittest. I hunted for C in this case, because I already thought that something apart of the wild birds environment was naturally selecting these small birds. Some people are saying thats a large assumption, but when we did the theory part of RRE questions, it said to lean in when you understand the concept. I dont know anything about bird species, but middle school science did help me go into hunt mode for this question!

I dont get A. Wouldnt we want to be looking more into the 52% that hasnt changed? Not the 47% that already felt a certain way. Because if the 52% stayed the same before and after the ethics violation, we would want to explain why they stood strong in their thoughts. I dont think we need to explain how 45% of the 47% just had their beliefs reinforced. The phenomena is that the 52% didnt change.

Someone please tell me how I am wrong.

#feedback would it be possible to put the average time needed on the quick view questions? I almost always do the quick view to try my knowledge first, but this question especially is complicated, and I think it would be beneficial to at least know what we should be aiming for in each question, despite not necessarily timing it.

Writing B out to make sure I fully understand, because even with the comparative claim, I feel I wouldve still put it as wrong:

"Before phosphorus levels doubled in the ocean region, most fish were able to survive in that region."

'Most fish' is wrong because, its trying to tell us a number. What if only a few more fish survive, but the area is still not a great place for fish to survive?

'More fish' is not trying to give us a number, but it would break the chain we have set up for conditional logic.

"Before phosphorus level doubled" = Before we had this conditional chain that lead to few fish surviving.

If we break the chain, or the chain had not yet existed, we can safely say more fish would have survived, because the phosphorus was not yet effecting their habitability.

having 'More' instead of 'Most' would have made that chain correct. Not more correct than A, because this is an MBT question, but if A wasn't there, B with the word 'More' would have been the correct answer.

Unfortunately no. The stimulus provides that

Coffee & Restaurant → Public Spaces

It never says that they fall under well designed public spaces. Personally, I think this should have been drawn as a subset of the circle he had for better understanding. But Coffee and Restaurant would be in the Public Spaces circle, but would be outside the subset circle "Well designed" . I initially chose C, because I ignored that the stimulus never said how many coffee shops are well designed. It could be all of them, which would then be:

Coffee shops → Well designed public spaces ‑m→ Artwork

But that is a logical flaw. Most needs to come first for this to even be logically valid.

Several is conflated with Some, and from our lessons, some is as little as 1, and as many as all. But sometimes some explicitly EXCLUDES all, and the context of the paragraph above gives away that they are also kind of excluding most as well. My thinking, is that the near monopoly of Baxe first starts to exclude small companies in the first place, but the fact that they have become a large company, and have the laid out necessary condition, leads me to believe that most small businesses truly cannot be having the better designs AND Baxe is still running circles around them. Baxe wasnt dropped on this earth as a large company, it most likely built from having superior designs at some point, and then capitlized on their growth and security.

5/5 on medium babyyy

I feel like we are ignoring the whole part of the stimulus. How can we not equate "Convince the general public of its existence by clearly demonstrating those powers" and "if it were a real phenomenon, could be demonstrated to the satisfaction of all the skeptics". Is it because Walts opinion denoted the people needing convincing as the general public, and Chin denotes the people that need convincing the "skeptics" and thus the elites that influence the general public? Is it because the two opinions of who needs convincing are not talking about the same group of people?

I went back and read it that way, and wow thats a great tip when dealing with confusing grammar for the second person.

I crashed and burned on this question and chose C, mostly because I read too fast and missed the "Cannot" part in QC and the "Not" part in QA. But if we took away the "not" part in QA, would we have a more reasonably stronger answer choice? My answer is no, because its assuming that fMRI's can be securitized the same way as genetic profiles. Once he was going over the answers, I realized that QB was correct, because in my mind it fixes QA (when I was reading it without the "not"). We can't say "fMRI's need this kind of security measure" thats an assumption, and one we would base off of real life. At most, we know that fMRI's have a break in security that genetic profiles do not, and based off the passage, we do not have a have a fix for the fMRI at the moment. Please let me know if this is a good interpretation or a good way to realize what questions are wrong and right.

Question: should I be consistently taking PTs at this point? I thought the course program would prompt me when it was time to start incorporating them. I have taken them in the past, but not since starting the course.

Yes true there are no contrapositives, but they said some is the only one that is reversible, meaning the main concepts can swap sides of the some arrow.

I was also thinking this! not necessarily that marine mammals do not actually breath water, but by taking out the Non-water breathing part when translating back to english, it doesnt make sense. By the original sentence, we could interpret that something like a whale could not have limbs (in the LSAT realm). But saying "some mammals do not have limbs" seems like they are adding to the context of the original sentence, not negating it. I think this should be fixed, or someone please explain if this is wrong.

If a some dogs like bacon is MBT, then given that some is reversible, cant some bacon like dogs? This is a stupid sentence, but I am just wondering in terms of our logic rules.

Are we not making an assumption in the first two sentences? "The Reach, the Vale, and Dorne are kingdoms within Westeros. The kingdoms in Westeros whose economies ...."

It doesnt say "all kingdoms of westoros have economies..". It says "the kingdoms in westeros whose economies", which makes me think that R, V, or D have not explicitly been labeled as kingdoms with economies who support foreign trade

I see the other side of this, where its more like "the kingdoms in westoros (whose economies...) support peace" but how would you tell that without intonation?

I still got the ending right, but I did not initially see the ability to chain with that sentence structure.

I am not a fan of kicking and do not find it helpful. I see its point when we have an overbearing amount of conditionals, but these do not seem to be the case.

#feedback is there a way to make these types of breakdowns another type of practice question we can drill? I think its beneficial to be spending my time here now, but from the comments, it seems like a lot of people come back to this section right before or after taking the LSAT. I would love to have even more extra practice for these foundation break downs.

Why is it "Antiobiotics fail", but then "Mary Sims declares 'Bilboards are the basis of our business'". If antibiotics do not specify in what they fail to do, why does Mary get to tell us what she declares? why is it not just "Mary Sims declares"?

Yes, always. As we get more question stems, it minimizes the times you have to refer back to the stimulus, and can actually help you identify within one read of the stimulus, allowing you to have more time on other harder questions.

someone correct me if I am wrong, because I was wondering the same thing, but I dont think that part can be labeled as a sub conclusion, because it didnt have support, as he said the next sentence was supporting the main conclusion. If it had said, "But this is not a sustainable, long-term solution because its filthy." and then went to the main conclusion, then I think it could be considered a sub conclusion. someone please respond to me if you think otherwise.