5/5

@GrahamSC this is so good. much faster than my previous strategy. thank uuu

5/5

5/5

5/5

5/5

@Gretellcruz are u asking why the translation is written as: "/communication"?

It's because the slash indicates NO communication. without the slash the translation would read: "If communication, then family ties become frayed and eventually snap" which would be wrong

5/5

5/5

4/5. went over time on all. got the first wrong and spent 9:46 on it but i 100% see why the right answer is right

im so glad i took that intro to logic class freshman year. everything just came backkkkkk

i got this right but 2m 36sec above target time. chile... had to bring out a pencil and paper for this

4/5 very proud of myself. time is still an issue but im not even a week into studying yet so i wont get hard on myself for time yet. i see why B was right in q5 and i feel like im starting to see patterns w these lsat questions

5 was crazyyy

5/5

4/5. question 4 went right over head...

5/5

i found a strategy that so far is working for me:

1. To find Subject: ask "what or who is this sentence about?" in other words: who or what is the main character

2. To find Predicate ask: "well... ok... what about the subject?"

this worked for all 5 questions for me

Ex: During his presidency, Thomas Jefferson expanded the territories of America by acquiring the Louisiana purchase.

1. What or Who is this sentence about? —> Thomas Jefferson

2. What about Thomas Jefferson —> He expanded the territories

Everything else is just extra description / modifier

What kind of territories? the ones of America

When and How did he expand? During his presidency and by acquiring the Louisiana purchase

the kernel can be thought of as s simple sentence you can pull out that still makes sense

Ex: Early twentieth century physicists were puzzled by the existence of black holes.

1. Subject: physicists

2. "what about the physicists?"

3. they were puzzled

That's the basic sentence. Everything else is extra

"by the existence of black holes" can't be the predicate because it doesn't make sense:

1. Subject = Physicists

2. well... what about the physicists —> by the existence of black holes

"Physicists by the existences of the black holes" ??? doesn't make sense

"Physicists were puzzled." Basic and makes sense, and wehn we start asking questions about the kernel then we get the modifiers

1. "what kind of physicists" (subject) — the early 20th c. ones (subject modifier)

2. what were they puzzled by? or what puzzled them? —> the existence of black holes (predicate modifier)

5/5

is this a good strategy to identifying the kernel:

1. find the subject (who or what is this sentence about / who or what is the main character)

2. then ask "what about the subject"

1. Subject = "The attempts"

2. well... what about the attempts? —> they will backfire

i got this right but i spent wayyy too much time on i

3/5 on first try and BR

i write down why i choose the (wrong) answer that i did, why its wrong, and why the right answer is right.

but im not justing copying and pasting other people's explanations. i make sure i thoroughly understand and can put in my own words why the wrong answer was attractive to me in the first place, why my answer is wrong, and why the right answer is riht

i got it and under the target time. baby steps

5/5