For question 16 JY eliminates AC A because "passage A doesn't even talk about an investor," but then AC C is our answer where it talks about investors? I get why AC C can be correct, but it's reasons like eliminating AC A that hurts me on the actual test. When I took this test I made the mistake of eliminating AC A and C for the exact reason it mentioned investors. Passage A didn't talk about investors. But, obviously that's wrong. I wish these bad techniques weren't so ingrained in my head now. I can't think that quick on my feet when it comes to RC. If I'm taught a technique to eliminate ACs quicker, I use it. #help is there a different technique to picking up words to eliminate quicker? Or should I just drop that method as a whole since I use it improperly in the heat of the moment?

Me knowing nothing about stocks reading Passage A: oh wow this all sounds interesting maybe it shouldn't be a crime

JY: I know what you're thinking this sounds ridiculous try to hold in your urge to fight against the argument

Wow this was really nice to see the difference between the two. I kind of wish this section was sooner in the syllabus, so that NA questions weren't my weakness for awhile on my Prep Tests lol

I fell for C. I had A as my "maybe" but as soon as I saw C I fell for "at least." We don't know the "at least," just that it's ISN'T the same as the walking.

Yup, AC C got me.

In my head: "Little, less; same difference."

Wrong smh

My mistake was mapping this out as an embedded conditional statement, because I just confused myself. I wrote it out originally like JG [just government] → (R CAD → DT) [if never restricts rights of citizens then it is not a direct threat]. This made the ACs much more complicated to unravel by trying to match up to the embedded part. It seems so much simpler to figure out the AC by intuition. I also found it easier to write it by treating "except" like "unless" (JY's done it before for some problems). JGR → DTH. Boom done. If there is a just government that does restrict, then there must be a direct threat to health/property of citizens.

I went ":o tru"

@ I think we had the same test. The last RC I had was on legal decision making but where they threw in economics examples. They really got me with that one

What😳😳 My test didn’t have any of those topics lol @

Wow I should've drawn this one out instead of doing it in my head. JY's diagram makes so much sense

Anyone else considering signing up for the June already without even seeing their score results yet?

All sections seemed rough for me. LG is my best (I average -1) and I had to completely guess on the last 3 questions because I ran out of time. RC was also so hard to comprehend. If I was allowed to say what I read I wouldn’t even be able to lol. LR was a little harder than normal but not crazy harder like RC. The amount of certain question types compared to others did throw me off a bit.

I thought subject matter didn't matter in parallel reasoning questions?!?!!? AC A is a valid argument that matches the abstraction and method perfect to the stimulus. This question is ridiculous

#help (Added by Admin)

I really didn't understand this stimulus so I got it wrong :'(

I chose AC E and did not like that I did lol. In my eyes none of them were correct because I really didn't like the "some" in AC B. I get why it's correct, but the language not matching up did not sit right with me for some reason.

AC C got me because I didn't read through to D because of time. D is so much more attractive now that I actually read it.

THANK YOU!

I got 17 correct on the mere fact that I eliminated all of the other ACs and felt confident in doing so.

P.S. you got this

For 23 I think C shouldn't be crossed out so easily. JY says there aren't differences in language that result in different ways of thinking. But, there are? The whole point of the last paragraph was to talk about how the different languages THINK different gender attributes towards an object, and as a RESULT the language is catered towards the feminine or masculine thought which is present in that specific language.

I'm just getting to this explanation and seeing that it's 40 minutes long. Yikes I'm already not so mad at myself anymore for getting a few questions wrong here lol

I've taken a problem set with this question in it 3 times (problem sets I've made myself over time to regularly try to learn from my wrong answers). EVERY time I've come across this problem I've come down to ACs D and C and have chosen C. This time around, I think the best bet if you're having trouble with AC D being correct is to look at it VERY abstractly. Like JY said, an identical twin would look physically similar enough to you for you to relate. Okay, so then, put yourself in the stimulus. If you take the "you" in the video you're watching as your "past self" and compare it to your "present self" watching the video, abstractly the concepts match up. Yes, they're both still you, but philosophically 2 different versions. I still don't like this question, but this is the best I could come up with for myself to stop fighting for AC C over D when I know it's not correct lol.

When I first saw I got this one wrong and it was a "MC" question, I said to myself there's no way I should be getting MC questions wrong this late in the game. It's nice to know it wasn't just me who found this one hard

I got 1/6 of these correct. I test in 6 days. Eep I'm going to go hide

Honestly, I really liked AC C at first but didn't choose it because I saw "proponents" and instantly recognized that the doctors were the opponents of the herbs. The herbs were the claim in the conclusion, so I assumed it was the claim in the AC. I thought the LSAT was trying to trick me lol. #help So just to sum it up, with flaw questions, it's okay to attack JUST the premise? Even if no part of the AC has to directly do with the conclusion?