@lcollom2000 i got stuck here too. here's how im viewing it

You are correct in your negation. the move will be accompanied by a significant pay raise. People can now afford houses within a 30 minute or less radius.

The original problem was that most employees would NOT be able to afford a house in Ocean View, so these people weren't going to move. Our conclusion being, "most Acme employees will have a commute of more than 30 minutes"

Once we factor in the negation, it throws out the whole argument. If people could afford housing, why wouldn't they take a shorter commute? Our "most" would become "some", thus invalidating the argument.

Because the negation of this answer choice throws the whole stimulus out of whack, this has to be the correct answer. Negation is your best friend (time allowing) if you get really stuck. I got stuck between D and E.

Hopefully that makes sense!

@Alexxreyeess both! work on accuracy first, then start working on speed

Someone please let me know if they do the same thing or if this helps them.

The way I'm attacking this question is to fully understand the passage and pick the answer I would use to explain the phenomenon to someone else. Like, it would make the most sense to talk about manufacturing pottery and what materials and tactics you use, because it's similar to the glass in the passage.

Does that make sense? Maybe i'm going a little crazy. Glass? Cathedrals? melting?

From what I recall in the intro to RC video, there is a search function on the actual test, similar to Control F. I wouldn't heavily rely on it just in case you come across an "implied" question rather than stated, but it can definitely cut some time down. Another tactic to practice is really reading and understanding the passage. Then you'll know exactly where to go in the passage rather than searching.

#feedback I don't understand how I chose the easiest difficulty, but got questions labeled as Hard and Hardest? Not really helping with the morale

I think i start bottom up because i get bored of reading top down after an hour

I have never been more frustrated with the LSAT and LR than these last two sections (SA and NA). I feel like i cannot get anything right no matter how much time I spend on it and I'm losing motivation

this after SA is starting to feel personal...

i did not mean to comment this help #feedback

Commenting to let you know that you are not alone.... im so discouraged but alas we must persevere

this made me want to pull my hair out

Someone let me know if they agree, so that I can decide if I'm on the right track or not. I feel like these types of questions are just "Well, what explanation is stronger?".

As I'm reading through the questions, I find myself saying out loud "A? Yea probably, B? yea probably. C? That makes way more sense than A and B. D? Yea probably"

Does anyone do the same thing?

#feedback we really need more practice problems for these. these are so complicated and the video was very limited with extremely simple sentences.

why did this stress me out more than the LSAT does...

For question 3, I think I got the right idea? The wording started to trip me up a little bit, but maybe someone can provide feedback on my work here...

Maintaining maximum deterrence from aggression by other nations requires that a nation maintain a retaliatory force greater than that of any other nation.

A & B - nations that maintain a retaliatory force v. any other nation

Comparing - who will maintain maximum deterrence from aggression by other nations

Winner - the nation that maintains a retaliatory force

#feedback the subtitles are slightly off time about halfway through the video lesson.

I keep moving too fast and incorrectly answering the passages with no conclusions....

Would there be statements like this on the exam? Statements with no conclusion?

would it be in my best interest to sit and study all the indicator words? or would that be a waste of time?