I'm interested!

"Your goal is to figure out the validity of the arguments on the LSAT instead of the validity of someone's son's lies." you ate with this sis

Im in DC! Count me in :) Feel free to send me a message!

Every question right on this section!! THERE IS HOPE!!!!

You are the best!! TYSM!

If I struggled with a section (like this one) I usually do easy, and then work my way up. I sometimes am reallyyy hard on myself when I struggle during practice questions, so getting easy questions right motivates me to keep going!

If I felt good with a section or got a lot of the "You Try" questions right, I'll do medium or hard. Even though I know I will not get as many right, it will help me learn by getting questions wrong what mistakes I am making!

Same here! I did the easiest questions just to prove to myself that I CAN do these types of questions, and sometimes you need that little confidence boost going forward!

34th! Happy studying everyone!

Needed this W after the last two questions!

Same here - something about these is just not clicking. I did go back and review the foundations and that helped!

I've gotten every other question right except for this one, glad to see im not the only one who got tricked!

My father is an attorney, and he said that a lot of the time when he sees an associate that went K-JD, they are burnt out by the time that they get into the working world. I currently work as a Legal Practice Assistant (aka a Paralegal) and I have been making amazing connections and getting exposed to the legal work before school which I think is so valuable.

I also worked at a law firm in recruiting, and I saw that a lot of the summer associates who had a job beforehand did better than the ones who didnt because they had already spent a couple of years in the "real world" before they went to school and were able to bring those skills into school.

I scored similarly on my diagnostic and was nervous about being able to improve, so this is giving me some hope!!!

I will score at least a 170+!

So basically, what it is saying is that because he did not specifically state a rule vs saying "if Percy does these things" that a rule is missing? I'm a little confused at how we are supposed to know a rule is missing in the first place.

Hi! I just started too, so we are in the same boat! I usually wait to practice all of the problems until they come up. And for watching the videos, I am a visual learner, so I will just watch and take it in, and then read the description below to make sure I didnt miss anything. I always write down the "lets review" part in a notebook, because for me, writing something down helps me to remember it better. Sometimes my head will automatically go to solve the problems, which I think is a great way to know if you are on track, such as looking at a sentence and already knowing the sufficient/necessary conditions. Hope this helps!

For question 5, I originally put PR→MJ since that's how I read the question and did my process. He didnt exactly say which one was right or wrong, so can someone explain if that is right/wrong, and if it is wrong, why the other answer is right?

I put this into chat GPT since I was confused with the blackout example, and it really helped me understand!

To negate a sufficient condition, you need to focus on what it means for the sufficient condition to not hold.

Example Breakdown:

Original Statement: "Blackouts will occur unless the heat wave abates."

1. Rephrased Statement: "If the heat wave does not abate, then blackouts will occur."

- Here, the sufficient condition is "the heat wave abates" (which leads to the outcome of not having blackouts).

Negation Process:

To negate the sufficient condition, you can do the following:

1. Identify the Sufficient Condition: In this case, it’s "the heat wave abates."

2. Negate the Sufficient Condition: The negation of "the heat wave abates" is "the heat wave does not abate."

3. Original Implication:

- If the heat wave abates (sufficient condition), then blackouts will not occur.

4. Negated Implication:

- If the heat wave does not abate (negation of sufficient condition), the implication about blackouts must be re-evaluated.

Complete Negation:

In the context of the original statement, the negation of the entire statement would be that the heat wave does not abate and blackouts do not occur. However, since we're focused on negating the sufficient condition specifically, we can say:

- Negation of the Sufficient Condition: "The heat wave does not abate" means that we cannot conclude that blackouts will occur or not.

### Conclusion:

So, when you negate the sufficient condition (in this case, "the heat wave abates"), you focus on its opposite: "the heat wave does not abate." This leads to a situation where the outcome (blackouts occurring) cannot be definitively stated.

In summary, when dealing with sufficient conditions on the LSAT, remember to rephrase and then identify how the negation affects the logical outcome. This approach will help you navigate similar questions effectively!

If you are looking to read the Economist for some practice, check your local library! Mine has it online for free, and I just print out articles that I think will help broaden my knowledge!

Lillypage22

If this is still a thing I would love to join!!!! username Lillypage22 :)