In the video explanation, the instructor says that we can immediately disregard the "and not just for its value as an investment" part, because it's impossible to be "desirable for its intrinsic value" and "just for investment" at the same time. I get it, but when the DeMorgan's Law is applied, it's a series of negated sufficient conditions where if even just one of them is true, the necessary condition follows right? So basically we're supposed to look out for any of them.

In that case, I wonder how quickly we can eliminate one of these conditions like in the video for other questions. For example, if one of these answer options was something like "Matilde read a magazine about how the vase is gaining attention in the antique market and was only excited about that", then it ticks the "just for investment" part and will be the correct answer. So at the end of the day, isn't eliminating early on a condition in DeMorgan's Law kinda risky?

@ZealousAltruisticMode Thanks man, appreciate it :). I'm slowly getting there but if I really get stuck again I'll definitely do a re-watch of everything. Yea I also agree that ppl shouldn't be ashamed of how much time they're taking when it's still in the learning phase. I was just doing some PT questions, and I made a mistake the first try, but after staring at the explanation video for 10 minutes I got it haha. Taking hours to learn is better than being ashamed of it and giving up!

@Kevin_Lin That's fair, thanks for your advice. Question 1 was completely my misunderstanding. For Question 5, yes surely the definitions can be debated and as you say, the "word-matching" is not the real focus on the LSAT. I think I was just frustrated by how I failed so much on the "word-matching" specifically in this exercise. Because I was able to do diagrams perfectly in most questions, but Question 5 told me I was wrong solely for the "word-matching" mistake :)

Finally, 6/6....!

See, something that really annoys me is how much you can assume two things are the same or different in sentences.

For example, in Question 4 its answer says: "It’s not clear whether being “expected to make tough decisions” implies having the ability to make tough decisions. Maybe you can be expected to make tough decisions, but you’re not actually able to make those decisions." Therefore the two are not chained.

But for Question 1, I originally thought "Clever velociraptors..." and "When a raptor..." might not be the same. Like, someone might say, "It's not clear whether the second sentence specifically talks about "The Clever Velociraptor", because if so, it should say "When THE raptor finds". We might just be talking about any raptors including the stupid ones"

In the same way, Question 5 treats "9th level Wizards command Magical Energy" and "Wizards with training can control magical energy" as a chain. If a reasoning in Question 4 is permitted, then shouldn't it say, "It's not clear whether they are the same. A wizard who can just command an energy may not be equally adept at controlling it".

Am I slow or is this reasonable?

I was always intimidated by sentences with multiple indicators, like the Jedi example, but I guess it was quite simple:

"One cannot become a Jedi (J) unless one possesses extraordinary discipline (D)"

• cannot = Group 4

• unless = Group 3

For Group 4 indicators, you pick one, put it into a necessary condition, and negate it. For Group 3, you pick one, put it into a sufficient condition, and negate it likewise. So:

• cannot J, unless D

  =

• /D → /J

Contrapositive is: J → D

Hence the simple translation is:

"If one becomes a Jedi, one possesses extraordinary discipline"

So knowing this is quite convenient actually. Whenever we have a sentence that constructs like "Group 4 (X), Group 3 (Y)", it automatically translates to "X → Y"

e.g. "He cannot live in Texas, unless he is American"

= "If he lives in Texas, he is American"

I'm generally good at arithmetics so I got 5/5, but when you ask me if I understand what each phrase is saying exactly, I gotta pause for like 5 seconds to digest it... This really makes me worried....