@JerryTianleChen literally. thought the exact same thing haha

but why is A wrong? The passage says "For one thing, volunteering damaging information early may create an image of credibility" is this too vague to assume "a short time" can be used in connection to the term "early" ??

@xyzana YES. sometimes using your intuition is a better tool than mapping it out. These modules are just other tools that can help prevent you from confusing sufficiency and necessity, because most times on the test your intuition may not help. These are good to rely on when all else fails.

i get why i was wrong now but damn... really gotta be specific

@pmason09 THANK YOU

@robnav second this

OMG I thought "falls apart" meant thats when the Methane is detectable... i feel stupid

@laurennhaumesser783 me too! I went with D though because I took "chief" as "only"... man I need to bone up on my grammar :/

this was strung out wayyy too long in my opinion. i feel like i lost concentration on what we were looking for.

@NathanielWright agreed.

where can i review rule application reasoning? i think thats why both NA and SA questions are so hard for me.

@meepmeep same here. after I read the stimulus I try and find the gap in my head before I look at the answers. A was the assumption I came up with IN MY HEAD before I even looked at it. Ugh.

"i wish you good luck" bro after the sufficient assumption module i need a miracle

@SaulMcGill Omg this helped so much. thank you!!!!!

these are kicking me in the butt. I havent got any correct and I even drilled with the easiest questions and got them wrong. This just isnt clicking at all :/

Got this right and felt good! Until I saw it was a easy level question :( lol a win is a win i guess!

@Jineen Yes, I would do that

@Jineen I had this problem too. I had to re-start the module and take new notes. Time-consuming I know, but it helped me tremendously. And if i felt I knew some of the lessons from weeks prior, I skimmed over it to save time.

@yunglean2005 145 :( granted i only studied 3 months with zero prior knowledge to the LSAT. gotta start somewhere!

#feedback I am having trouble knowing the difference between non-causal and causal arguments, with the strengthening and weakening mixed in with both. I feel like every question is different and I can't tackle it the same way. I have gone through this lesson twice over and I still dont get it. I looked at the causal argument lessons in the core section and it didnt help :(

this is frustrating as I got a 141 on my first ever LSAT and I know damn well she probably got at least a 160. Cant get into any law school with my score, while shes out here scoring fine and could probably get into a few law schools at least with her first score. I am trying to see the motivation but it would help to see someone with more realistic goals ;'(

@meepmeep Agreed.

C was tempting. But I went with E. But the explanation for C being wrong is still confusing to me. Can someone please explain?

@AyaniZ For this type of weakening question, the best way to weaken the support is by sapping the hypothesis/conclusion. To do that you need to find an alternative hypothesis that could answer the phenomena in another way other than the hypothesis given in the stimulus. You don't have to come up with an alternative on your own because you can use process of elimination and parse out the answer that would give a solid hypothesis that would sap the original one. I hope that makes sense!

Just tanked my November LSAT... found myself coming back here. We got this :') i think...