i thought answer choice D would help students GET more financial scholarships, not imply that they won't be able to maintain it so they actually lose it:(

and then I thought A was wrong because I thought A meant that the tuition had increased because their salaries increased. But after watching the video I see it actually does nothing because tuition was determined from the number of courses you take, and how much it cost actually didn't change.

It still doesn't click for me what A has to do with a thief being more likely to be convicted? Like why is it that the number of car thefts has decreased but according to the stimulus, the thief is now more likely to be convicted of the crime?

How does A in any way answer the convicted part of the discrepancy? (A. Although there are fewer car thieves now than there were five years ago, the proportion of thieves who tend to abandon cars before their owners notice that they have been stolen has also decreased)

-

Ok after reading everyone's comments I think it's because if they're less likely to abandon their cars before the owners notice that means police are more able to catch them somehow lol

changed my answer to C from D in blind review😞

this question and correct answer choice makes no sense to me because it barely relates to the passage. I don't understand where the author talks about access to imported cultural productions among developing nations? how do you relate answer choice A to what is mentioned in the passage?

this question scares me

no bc i got this wrong thinking A is some sort of trap answer... words can't describe the pain im going thru rn

can someone explain why C is wrong, to me in a different way? I still don't get it:(

wow i hate this passage

omg the explanation to d is so funny to me because i definitely picked it thinking alcohol and tobacco are good things LOL

lol

Q24 has 2 right answers and I will not be gaslight by this video to believe D is wrong. LSAT writers are so cruel

I'm still having a hard time understanding why A is correct for question 13

this lesson says it's only 1 min

Is there no video for this lesson? :(

i don't understand why in the Lawgic part of this lesson, is there not an actual usage of the symbols that correlate with the English statement form? It makes understanding this lesson 10x harder than if we could use J for Jedi, F for Force, or CD for Count Dooku.

this question deserves 5/5 difficulty. the correct answer choice? absolutely shocking

Tbh the switch up from the Brick Wall Review to the "your magazine" had me dead confused

I've never taken a proctored online exam before, and maybe this is a silly suggestion but I'd appreciate it if 7Sage could make a video on what it's like to take an online proctored LSAT test (if they haven't already, im still reviewing curriculum lol)

i dont understand these kind of flaw questions with conditional logic:,( they're so hard

what is the english form for this Lawgic statement: M → /(/N or /O)?

I'm confused on how we got there after the negating a conjunction example. I don't understand the use of parentheses either

this question is so confusing to me. especially the conclusion

E was so obviously correct I almost got it wrong

LSAT writers are so mean bro. Not only was the SA was hard enough to find here, but they made matters worse by writing the correct AC in the most convoluted way they could. Like it was already hard enough >:(

I'm confused as to why the premise is /attack --> bankrupt. I thought that the logical indicator 'no' was negate necessary and that would make bankrupt the negated necessary condition? or the negated necessary condition would be /attack? im so confused pls help

this question was so hard omg. the answer choices were all so attractive. thats the worst part of method of reasoning questions, the ACs are all usually generic and attractive. distasteful