@yushankuo33594 whattt? that's so weird - at least you were able to see your score...

@mirivas61.i.rivas yes! i've found that for me, i like reading the stims before the stems. and it didn't take too long - i probably did a handful of lr sections before feeling comfortable

@hopje336 honestly just reading the stimuli first, then doing CLIR and prephrasing. That allowed me to go into the ACs feeling equipped and ready to know what to look for

maybe try doing drills with the hardest questions only. and maybe review the loophole again! practice the drills in the loophole until the basic translation and "CLIR" process becomes second nature. I was in your position about a month ago and am now at about -2/-3 for LR. you've got this!

if one were to split up "not suitable for growing in a tub or pot" into two variables (t) and (p), would it be (/t and /p) -> /m because of the "not... or"? thank you!! #help

another helpful reason for why b is wrong is bc the disagreement is not on the degree of utility that the modern plays offer. we dont know if L or C would say that the modernized plays are more or less useful. just that L says that they are still valuable and C that they are not useful. the disagreement is not about the degree to which they are useful or not, but about the binary of their utility (yes/no).

e really got me on this one - but it is not right because the stimulus already accounts for the possibility that it is the nature of the movies and not the reviews themselves that makes one more apt to realize whether or not they will enjoy a movie

The author began the essay with a survey of the dominant views of the origins of names, but at the end of the first paragraph argues that those views are limiting. Then the author proceeds to explain why those views are limiting. Before finally reaffirming the conclusion that the leading Euro views of names are limiting.

What made me not choose C was that we don't know that the Hopi name process can be called a "theory," or whether it's just the author's counterexample to the leading narratives on name origins.

Hi -- the first sentence of the second paragraph establishes that property law is a subset of common law. It makes this link when it says "property law, for example,..." That transition helped me understand that the second paragraph was an extension of a claim made in the first paragraph. The second paragraph would address how, as the author had claimed in the first paragraph, common law presents an opportunity for Native Americans to advance some claims.

I'm not sure I would say that ice ages has a conditional relationship with species diversity. I think the time theory suggests that there is a correlational relationship. With more time, more species diversity. And how do ice ages factor into this? Well, they make "time" in that region affected by the ice ago revert to square one.

The way I thought of Q17 was to think about which AC demonstrated this correlation between time and more species. We do not know what will happen if there is NO ice age because there can be no ice age, but we still would not know how "old" the region is compared to other regions. We only know that if there IS an ice age, we have that reversion to square one.

I think the ACs for this Q can be narrowed down to A and D. But A is correct because with D, we don't know if there will be an ice age in that region, so we cannot definitively say that there will be an increase in the number of species. Contrast this with A, which accounts for this possibility.

Hope this helps!

lifesaver! thank you so much!!! :)

It can't mean popularity because popularity is something that the author thinks does NOT outweigh the reason for rejecting the bill. And this is connected to the flaw in the argument because the author DOES assume that popularity is the only reason why people would even want to support the bill. In making this argument, they overlook the fact that there can be other reasons for supporting a bill.

This question is tricky because the original statements in the stimulus appear to be logical opposites, or negations, but they are not. For example, the negation of generous is not "selfish"; rather, it is "not generous." It is critical to realize that these statements are NOT contrapositives of one another before proceeding to the ACs. Keep this distinction between linguistic opposites and actual logical opposites in mind when reviewing the ACs.

I found it helpful to consider the missing link between the first and second sentences. In the first sentence, the historian discusses how this scientific theory will lead to moral decline. And then, all of a sudden, in the second sentence they switch gears to discussing the implications of what happens when people do not feel responsible for their actions. The sufficient assumption that will allow for the argument to be valid bridges the gap between the theory and responsibility for actions.

this is so helpful! thank you!!

I would spend a week Foolproofing the LGs using Pacifico's method (https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/2737/logic-games-attack-strategy/p1). I have been doing that for the past week and have found it SO helpful. I think spending a week doing that would pay dividends for the August test.

@chris353 no, nothing more you need to do. and dates/times are not avail yet. and each section is scored the same, so each section counts for 33% of the score

@amaka-okonma8 i think the no fee to change the date - the coupon, i believe - applies only for people who signed up before the august flex announcement was made

also interested!

I don't think it is assumed that Country Q cannot produce coal itself. In fact, they have to be able to produce (i.e. mine) the coal themselves, which is what the stimulus says. The reason why B is the correct answer - as opposed to A or C - is because we cannot make comparative judgments about absolute values across the tallies. We simply do not know how much coal was mined in '90 v. in '91. If we don't know how much was mined/consumed in the respective years, then how can we say with certainty that 1990 had smaller tallies? Well, even without comparing values across the two years, if in a given year a country mines 10 tons but consumes 15 tons, they will have a resulting -5 tons. Because the country consumed more than it had mined, it inevitably has a negative, or a small, tally value. Regardless of how much a country in the other mined/consumed, so long as they consumed less than they had mined, they will have a greater tally.

Remember, JT's method of approaching these questions is not to attack the premises/conclusions, but the support. The scope of the researcher's argument is pretty narrow: the researcher is saying that we should not use the studies based on the lab rats to support conclusions about the humans because the rats are fat and eat a lot. The correct answer that weakens the argument, then, must be limited to the scope of this argument. Even though D suggests that well, there are some people who have reduced their diets and consequently lived longer, what does that have to do with the lab rats? Even though D indeed provides competing evidence that weaken the argument - that is without doubt - that is not the type of argument that the LSAT is looking for. Remember, the correct answer choice is confined to the scope of the hypotheses made in the stimuli.