OMG HI FELLOW JJK FAN I’ve been embracing my inner Gojo while studying 😭

Lesson learned: completely and sufficiently do not mean the same thing!!

I eliminated E bc I struggled to see how something being easier would support these flowers ACTUALLY doing it...I compared this AC to me getting a 5-star correct...just because I get the most difficult LSAT questions right doesn't mean I'll be able to get all the 1-stars right, even though they're easier... #help !!

As I drill more Weaken, I'm starting to realize that I keep getting these wrong bc I want a complete destroyer of an AC. I saw the "not all" in B and thought "ok this could only mean 1 living being, and it may only apply to one planet". But this can still weaken bc even if it's a small chance, we still have a situation or outlier for this argument, so while it may not be enough to destroy it, it is enough to make one second guess or at least reconstruct the argument to include these outliers.

AC C is wrong bc, as mentioned, the establishing that this is the most reliable method. We don't need to be able to perform it for it to be unreliable - that just means that we can't achieve it ourselves. That's like saying moving to Mars is the only way to defeat global warming - can we do that at present? No. Can we maybe do it in the future? Sure. But this isn't a valid objection to Mars still being the only way to defeat global warming, that just means that we can't defeat it ourselves.

I hesitated with B bc I thought the discounted tickets being the same price included the discounted price, so 50% tix from last year = 90% tix from this year. But if we know the base of the discounted tickets are the same and then apply the discount, then yes AC B definitely ensures the MC. AC C is wrong bc it IS A RESTATEMENT WE DON'T NEED THAT IN SA WE ALREADY KNOW ITS TRUE BC ITS A PREMISE

God I wish covid didn't destroy my math skills

I had a difficult time linking these ACs back to the stim, POE narrowed it down to D and E. What made me confused about D was that I failed to realize consumers are a part of the market the objection mentions. If the market (consumers in this case) is doing its duty to be efficient, then ya we have a basis to trust the market. Therefore, AC D can't be a weakener.

AC E was so wordy idek how to tackle it. This explanation was great - it's basically saying that in the instance of landlords, they buy the cheapest appliances and leave it to their tenants to pay the inefficient energy bill. This suggests that the market is prioritizing profits over efficiency, therefore making the market less of an ideal institution to trust with energy efficiency.

my own example to ensure I know wtf I just watched: The NYPL should restrict the permitted websites/searches on its public computers/wifi. Objection: People can be responsible for themselves and their searches. Weakener: Some people, like criminals, use public computers to access the dark web without leaving a trail of their personal information.

I had difficulty here because the numbers in the stimulus psyched me out a little. I read C and thought this strengthened the conclusion because it's still under 9.5 cm...but what makes it a weakness is that the stim says the drops are ALWAYS between 4.5 and 4.8...we have to look beyond the fact that 9.3 is still under 9.5 to the point that maybe if we continue conducting this experiment we may see it eventually increase to or beyond 9.5. AC C is correct bc it's providing a potential loophole to the stems assumption - we can confidently say that the blood will always range between 4.5 and 4.8 just from 10 trials. If on the 11th trial we get a measurement of 9.3, then we can't make this assumption anymore and therefore the premise for the conclusion isn't valid.

AC E is correct for the same reason I eliminated B, we don't know if the expert in the stim is the expert mentioned in those AC. Some can mean one, and not all means some, so it can only be 1 faulty expert out there, making it unlikely that it's the one in the stim...we just don't know.

Devising my own example to ensure I understand: So Ice Spice concludes that she's the greatest artist of all time because after releasing only 5 albums, they always charted at #1. Weakener: when ice spice released her 6th album, it only charted at #7. This doesn't completely weaken her conclusion, #7 is still pretty good, but it weakens the assumption derived from the premise as she no longer will ALWAYS chart at #1.

I knew AC B was wrong, but I had eliminated everything else and was so confident in those eliminations.

AC C I eliminated bc I forgot that percentages are mentioned in the stimulus. I'm used to saying "ok percentages don't mean numbers" and eliminating, but that can be harmful when we have percentages mentioned in the stimulus, which gives us more information than just randomly getting percentages alone.

AC B is wrong bc yes high school grads are necessary to work this equpment, but there's so many other positions in the army we can't assume that these new recruits will be fulfilling those roles related to equipment.

AC C matched my loophole, but AC B was so tempting bc it also offered like a resolution almost. I guess it's reasonable to assume that less cops wouldn't produce less serious accidents, but I swear I've seen another question where the correct AC was this weird relationship between having less cops and therefore less traffic accidents...oh well

Solution: TRUST MY LOOP ABOVE ALL MY LOOPS ARE UNSTOPPABLE

AC A is incorrect because LacTOSE and LacTASE do not have the same function. I think it's key to take critical notice of when we see two similar words in the stim bc I'm sure LSAC will take advantage of a literal one word difference to trip us up. Well played...a decrease in Lactase, that AIDS lactose production, would actually be harmful for the body and therefore strengthen the MC here.

AC B - I didn't see how this could be correct at first. I saw most and thought "ok this could apply to most of the population, but we don't know how big this population is? What if it's 1 billion and this 50 million is a minority". This is a misinterpretation on my part because we're talking about most people WHO DRINK MILK, not just the population. Ok and now we know at least 51% of milk drinkers don't consume the same amount of lactose in this study, making the experiment in the stim unrepresentative and therefore weakening the validity of its conclusion.

So basically AC B helps establish that the experiment is unrepresentative by having subjects drink way more milk than what is normal for society. That's like determining that Americans 50 million Americans need to take Ozempic from conducting an experiment only on people from my 600 pound life. What if eating 6 pizza boxes a day isn't reflective of the normal American diet?

Only got 3 wrong this section, one of which being a 1-star wallahi I'm cooked.

When reading the ACs, I knew I needed a rule concluding that we shouldn't change policies. AC C was great, but I saw that value judgement with "better" in comparing potential consequences, and I lost confidence in my answer. We don't know anything about this city, so how can we determine if jobs or decreasing air pollution is better? This led me to pick E, which I understand doesn't include the rule we need. I have a tendency to pick ACs like E that won't trigger a rule, but can definitely support the argument.

1) I love the new question explanations written below the videos, way more concise than watching a video.

Wrong answer C - I chose C but "generally" is hard to prove. You would need way more than this one instance to know if this phenom generally happens, so we can't infer this from the passage.

Correct AC E - what took me away from E was the conditional. I didn't see a conditional in the stim, so I didn't think the correct AC could include a conditional. Moving forward, I'll always leave a descriptively accurate conditional open and check the other Acs to see if I find anything better.

Another reason I'm noticing why AC C is correct. The stim goes from the specific (Australia) to the general (carnivores). Ideally, it's way harder to prove a generalization from one specific instance...so I think its better to argue that the conclusion is about Australia as the author relies on the general to support it.

A - discusses media bias as a whole --> way outside of scope

C - discusses liberal bias --> this is the focus of the stim

Q8 AC E, upon looking up the definition and synonyms for imposition I understand this word has a negative connotation. smh

WE GOT Q27 RIGHT 2 MONTHS LATER LETS GOOO

LSAC decided to have mercy giving us Q23

What the actual fuck is this passage...I only got 3 right

Praying Praying Praying I don't have a passage like this come February

I didn't see C as correct bc I understood the stim to say that these kids had their high GPS's after completing the program, so they already had the high GPA before seeking membership. I guess the key here is to realize that they had this motivation while doing the program...

I understand why A is wrong BUT OMG that "almost always" went over my head as a concession...BRUH

POE to the rescue!

AC A - we can't say these psychologists are incorrect...the only evidence we get relating to how this practice impacts confidence is AN AVERAGE, I think that's the key to eliminating some of these AC. Yes, adults raised this way were on average just as confident as those adults who were not. An average doesn't eliminate the possibility of one outlier having extremely poor self-confidence.

AC B - "most confident" and "least confident" are too extreme here. I was definitely leaning towards B, but again all we have is an average. Just like my example for AC A, it's also possible that this average was taken from data of a bunch of normally confident adults. Again, we just don't know!

AC C - The stim establishes that passerby did conclude from seeing children outside that they misbehaved.

AC D - again most confident? Can't make any inferences about that, we're only provided an average.

AC E - Do I have any idea what this means, no. Can I find a reason to eliminate it besides my confusion? Also no. Pick it and move on

Great explanation Kevin! You covered my exact thinking for picking C but wow this is such a poor question. We're supposed to see this examples of diatoms used and understand that D weakens the argument by weakening this example, a factor that could be one of many for algae...but AC C isn't providing an alternative explanation bc the focus in the stim is the "unusually large" amount of this material...ok

AC A - I thought this was a strengthener for Q bc it's saying regular training is necessary...so what about the school training? Elim

AC B - Ok if kids can adapt, why teach them these skills in the first place? Elim

What helped me realize the fault in AC A and B was to separate their reasoning from the stim. As a standalone, they offer no evidence in support of educational tech programs nor disprove Q.

AC D - I picked this bc I thought it was a traditional LSAT method of reasoning rebuttal; I've seen a lot of analogies and since I wasn't confident, I picked D. However, D is wrong bc is using a computer like driving a car? Analogies work only if the comparisons have some similar attributes, but we can't assume that computers vs. cars have any similarity from the stim.

AC E - This actually weakens P's argument bc if they don't have time to learn about computers, and their knowledge on computers are outdated, then those kids are screwed.

AC C is correct bc if ANY computer or computer language learned will increase one's capability to use a computer, then learning outdates skills as Q mentions can still be beneficial.

I experienced the same! I spent so much time figuring out why A and B are wrong