Interested if still looking for folks - or if not, if anyone else is on here, scoring in the 160s, and trying to improve their score for January lmk!

I think about it in terms of sufficiency and necessity.

If you live in a world where A → B and someone came along and introduced /A, there is no conclusion for you to draw; /A could be sufficient for B or it could be sufficient for C, you just don't know. (However, if you conclude /A → /B then that would be committing the logical fallacy denying the antecedent).

Specific to the question above:

A → B

A → C → D

/D

Therefore: /C and /A

The conclusion we draw from the stimulus is /D → /C and /D → /A

Which one of the following must be false?

A) /D → A We know this cannot be true based on the conclusion we just drew (/D →/A)

B) C→B We don't know enough about that relationship to rule this out.

C) A → D Must be true based on the conditions above

D) /A → B Don't know. Affirming the necessary condition (of the conclusion /D→/A) doesn't tell us anything conclusive in the same way that denying the sufficient doesn't either.

E) /C → /A Must be true based on the conditions above

E was tempting for me under pressure because it seemed like it was sort of strengthening: if the gov does not pursue the policies, then fuel prices don't increase. This led me to think: ok, great then they are totally at fault for pursuing the policies.

It's wrong because of what JY said, also strengthening is not the task, and finally to think about it the way I was, you still need A to be true: gov must be responsible for indirect causes.

Stay on task!

Interested as well!

I'd love to join! Will you send out a meeting link?

I understand that this is a sufficiency/necessity flaw, and more specifically, a fallacy of denying the antecedent/mistaken negation flaw, but still having a little trouble making that fit within the wording of AC A.

A) Takes a sufficient assumption (purpose) for the state of affairs (basis) to be the necessary condition for it.

Is this saying that if you have:

Purpose -> Basis

By concluding Purpose (-> ~Basis) you are mistakenly using Purpose when you should be using the necessary condition of the first statement to make a valid contrapositive? And thereby mistaking the sufficient condition for the necessary condition in an attempt to create construct a valid argument?

#help

I chose A, but struggled to say why D is wrong. Here is my thought process.

(ACs B, C, & E talk about predators, so I eliminated them)

A) Correct b/c it says that feeding on the grass is the only way for the moth to protect itself. We already know it's one means of protection, but now that it's the only means we can conclude that the moths are in danger of extinction if the grass goes extinct.

D) Says that if the grass is not abundant, then the moths can't locate it. This may lead you to think that it's possibly a NA b/c, after all, if the moths can't locate the grass when there isn't very much of it, it would follow that it may be a reason why the moths would go extinct as well. But this AC doesn't fill the role of NA b/c we would still have to make the assumption that is in B) - that the grass is the only way the moth can protect itself.

Interested!

Interested as well if this is still available!

I am interested! Thanks!

This sounds great. Would be interested in doing this with you and/or others!

I had to really shift the way I read. In the core curriculum, and most all LSAT courses, they tell you to focus on structure and purpose but that just doesn't come natural to me - I get focused on the details even if I know I shouldn't be. Two things have been helping me:

Force myself to forget about the details (reading faster helps with this)

Work toward getting that gut feeling of understanding

There is a gut feeling you have when you really get something you're reading, when you kinda get it, or when you are lost. I know what that feels like for me, so I make that the goal that I work toward in every passage. These are the prompts that I use to practice:

First Paragraph

What is the thesis? (If none, then you're reading background - keep looking)

Where is this going?

Each subsequent paragraph

What is the point of this?/Why is the author talking about this?

After Final Paragraph

ID the passage: Is it a Phenomenon-Hypothesis, Profile, Clash of viewpoints Problem, or are they just telling you about something?

Quickly review the structure - what is each paragraph doing?

If I know these things I find that I'm better set up for the questions - even though if feels wrong/scary not having a grasp on the details. I find that most of the time the questions are asking about these things anyways. If there is a question about details then I can go find it. Also, knowing these things helps you eliminate 4 wrong answer choices just as often as it makes the correct answer choice stand out.

I find this thread so reassuring for a lot of reasons. I am also a nontraditional student; I am 34 and law school will also be a second career for me. Going to law school is something I wanted, but didn't pursue, after undergrad and has been gnawing at me ever since. I work full time and struggle with studying, with anxiety about being older, and with feeling comfortable owning it, so to speak. Thank you to all of you here offering solidarity and encouragement!

As for the diversity statement for the non-diverse albeit nontraditional student, which I am also considering whether or not to write, I would say that being a nontraditional student in and of itself, regardless of the incredible amount of experience you've had, it not enough. You would have to present a compelling demonstration that your experience supports your ability to contribute something meaningfully different or unique, beyond simply having sweet project management skills, a steadfast work ethic, or stellar interpersonal communication, for example. Which I have no doubt we all can do!

The best way for me to get this question is to eliminate the wrong answers.

B, C, and E all have the wrong logical structure, so easy to eliminate. That leaves D and A.

D discusses good reasons and justification for beliefs, but we don't really care about those things - they are not a good match for the original argument.

That leaves E. Even if you miss the implicit inferences (I did) the logical structure is the same, and it is dealing with whether the things exist. E is the best option.

I have a score of 172 on the November LSAT

Hi, also a non-traditional student and interested in study buddies. Aiming for the June test to salvage all the work I've put into LG.

Hi, interested in joining if there is an update discord link. Thanks!

The reason I choose D was because I thought it explained why the birds have camouflage and do the barking. If their predators have good eyesight and poor hearing, then it would be advantageous for the birds to alert others to danger so they could blend in. The predators (although alerted) wouldn't be able to hear well enough to locate them (approximate location)... especially if they couldn't see them.

However, D just doesn't explain the discrepancy because it requires you to assume the reason for the barking (alerting other birds) through a statement about the predators senses. Without the reason why, statements about the predators senses are irrelevant. B on the other hand just says it directly: predators are afraid of large numbers of birds.

Interested as well. Thanks!

I keep getting caught up in AC A) suggesting that bees do not depend on perceiving an object's color and then the first sentence stating that bees' vision is well suited to perceiving flower's color. In any case, the argument as stated below is the best way I can get this to make sense to me:

Bees' vision is well suited to identify flowers by their color. [A) But probably they don't DEPEND on it meaning that, if necessary, they could use other means to identify flowers]. Therefore, it is probably the case that flowers were the ones who adapted to enhance bee attraction.

Struggled with the stimulus because I was too focused on the details and not the structure... it all blurred together and meant nothing.

The stimulus presents a phenomenon then gives other people's hypothesis. The author then dismisses the first hypothesis in favor of their own second hypothesis. E) ties the phenomenon to the author's hypothesis.

Interested, thanks!

I got caught up in the comparison of colored paper and paint in the premises, so it helped me to think of the premises separated out like this:

C: For teaching color, should use colored paper rather than paint

P: Colored paper allows for repeated use of same color and paint does not

P: Repeated use of the same color allows for the precise comparison of color's impact in varying contexts

NA: Precise comparison of color's impact in varying context matters

On an easier NA question they could have stopped with comparison between the two regarding the repeated use of the same color and the the NA would be something like, the ability to repeatedly use the same color is necessary for teaching color.

I choose B, but realize that I had to add way too much extra information to the argument to make B work: like maybe the rules included selecting winners randomly on a daily basis but there were a limited number of overall winners. If they advertised these rules than more people would submit entry forms at the beginning and it would be fair.

In hindsight, B is clearly wrong and I am kind of horrified that I did this. Does this happen to anyone else? Any thoughts about reigning in your mind when it is getting too creative?

#help (Added by Admin)

Q7.

Eliminated A, C, and E

B and D were maybes

B) Seems like a big leap, like a lot of assumptions have to be made, but the keyword is "can". Even if it takes 100 years for enough silt to accumulate and impact water transportation on a certain river, it still can eventually occur.

D) Tricky because it says "especially in tropical rainforests" when discussing the need to protect the globe's biodiversity. There has to be a reason, but I guess you can't assume that it's because there is more biodiversity in rainforests. Maybe they are just more at risk. It seems most obviously wrong in hindsight because of the "internationally recognized" part.