@Saul McGill 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 Altayeh Yes, I would do that

@Jineen Altayeh 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...

@Shoshana this makes more sense. Thank you!

@Catpop this made me feel so much better! Thank you ;')

i am cooked.

Bruh I keep getting them wrong initially, then picking the right one on blind review. Ugh.

I feel like this explanation is overcomplicating things. Why are we putting our MSS hats on?

having trouble coming up with good low-res summaries. Any tips?

I thought A would be correct because it is precluding an alternative hypothesis. Webs other than the Glomosus webs that have the UV component did not reflect the UV light, so the Glosmosus web is what attracts the insects, and no other alternatives.

@emmalc02 This makes sense. I understand what JY is saying here, to "predict" but this explanation generalized it more and makes a little bit more sense. Thank you!

@generallypreparedforthings This is how I looked at it too! All the other answers seemed to weaken/do nothing for the argument because they had nothing to do with the genetic portion.

@JackFoley thanks bruh :)

Can someone reassure me? ;'( I feel super behind (my LSAT is in 2 weeks) and I have been studying for 3 months, but my diagnostic is super low... I am probably going to take the LSAT again a few more times, but feeling discouraged.

@devansonjr The foundations took me - embarrassingly - 2 months to complete. I also work a full-time job and I studied roughy 2 hours a day. Unfortunately I wish I knew before buying this course that the foundations would take a while because I feel like I learned more by actually drilling the LR and RC sections than painfully going through these Foundation sections. I feel very unprepared for my LSAT in a couple weeks here because I devoted all of my time in the Foundations sections, and now I am scrambling to drill LR and RC :'(

@jordkerns This makes so much more sense. Thank you!!!