#feedback I chose Answer Choice (E) (The epidemics known to have been caused by the Ebola virus are usually shorter-lived than was the Athenian epidemic) because I figured that a shorter life span of the later versions of the disease implies that the disease has been around for a while (supporting the conclusion). I based my reasoning in how newer covid variants are weaker because covid has been around for a while now. What's the flaw in my logic?

this is where i really hate the LSAT writers because for 14 I ruled out D because I accepted the research team's hypothesis as the mainstream hypothesis whereas I accepted the author's hypothesis as the alternative- as if there is only one alternative hypothesis, but there are 2 hypotheses in total.

#feedback in 12.3 how come humans aren't the object in that sentence? Do they not receive the action of "associate"?

#feedback in 4.2 why isn't "modern" considered the predicate object modifier?

I am very disappointed that hand-drawn formal logic was not used in the video explanation.

I got the question correct because D is stronger than C. After watching the video, I am still not 100% certain as to why C is incorrect, anyways. Can someone explain, perhaps in different words than JY, as to why C is incorrect? #feedback

lsat writers deserve jail for this

#feedback why isn't a negated conditional /(A->B)? I think this is what I learned in my university's Intro to elementary logic class. If the whole relationship is negated, then why wouldn't the negation logically fall outside the whole relationship?

#feedback just like "most" and "some", does "overwhelming majority" or "majority" also sometimes include an "all" interpretation?

you suck at writing !!

I hated this question. I cant see why E is good. I can see why the other answer choices are weak, though. is the language in E not too strong? "solving one set of problems" who is to say that modern medicine has solved anything? just because more people are having longer and less painful lives, that doesn't mean anything has been necessarily solved??? what a weird way to be worded? #feedback

that awk moment when u get an agree question in the middle of your third PAI drillset in a row and don't even read agree at all and pick E because u think its disagree </3

#feedback I HATE that E is the right answer because I interpreted "significantly fewer" in the stimulus as meaning that the situation described in E was already accounted for. "significantly fewer" doesn't mean "not abnormally high" necessarily BUT to me that phrase meant that there was in fact a significant dif between pre and post speed limit change. I WENT INTO this question keeping in mind there could be an alternative explanation that could weaken the conclusion. In NO way did I interpret E as meaning such. Maybe if E had added "in comparison to previous years" SURE i wouldve gotten it because that would then mean the old data was not an outlier year for pre-lowered speed limits. Im actually pissed off because the lsat writers deserve jail time for this.

#feedback Hi! I wrote the conditional statement from the facts as "large nursery -m-> sell to commercial growers AND disease free." I then applied de Morgan's to receive "/commercial OR /disease free -m-> /large nursery," which led me to answer choice D. Is this logic flawed because I applied de Morgan's to a "most" scenario?