User Avatar
lsat.footpad065
Joined
Apr 2025
Subscription
Free
User Avatar
lsat.footpad065
Sunday, Mar 30

5/5 BUT one the hardest question took me 10 minutes alone. A lot of work to do here.

User Avatar
lsat.footpad065
Saturday, Mar 29

Did anyone else take 8:45 to get to the right answer? If only I could get the right answer by the target time.

User Avatar
lsat.footpad065
Thursday, Feb 20

So there must be a relationship between some and most, defined as:

X←s→Y logically equivalent to X‑m→Y

Since, Few X are Y can be translated to X←s→Y, and X‑m→Y

User Avatar
lsat.footpad065
Tuesday, Feb 18

Good to know about the LSAC policy. Everything else was a waste of my time.

User Avatar
lsat.footpad065
Tuesday, Feb 18

#feedback This section appears to be added to assist in bigger picture understanding of the LSAT problems (ie, sample sizes, problems with "experiments", etc.) but there is a lack of application or clear cut take-aways from these lessons.

While the information may be pertinent and useful, it seems to fall into the black hole of notes I have with no discernible point.

User Avatar
lsat.footpad065
Thursday, Feb 13

For question 5: Anyone who is twenty-one years old or older is legally allowed to purchase alcohol in the United States.

It appears to have an if and only if relationship. That is, if P then Q and if Q then P.

If (21 or older) then purchase legally.If (purchase legally) then (21 or older).

This is based on the context of the question. If someone has legally purchased alcohol then there is no situation in which they are not 21 years or older. The same is true if they are 21 years and older then they are allowed to purchase alcohol in the US.

This exercise was for practicing De Morgans laws, but I want to make sure I'm translating the sentences correctly.

User Avatar
lsat.footpad065
Sunday, Feb 09

Question 3 has confused some people, and for me I think the issue is trying to build the intuition for necessary vs sufficient. I initially have the conditions flipped. I tried to create a visual for the problem to assist, but this was difficult.

Under the set "Oral Myths" there would be: written down, not written down, survived, not survived. How would I generate the visual appropriately from this problem statement to arrive at the correct conclusion.

The fact that some of the group 1 and group 2 indicators are under and over inclusive means an intuitive approach or knowledge for this would be super beneficial. Can anyone help with visualizing?

User Avatar
lsat.footpad065
Tuesday, Mar 04

I got all but one of the questions wrong. I don't feel like there was a lot of lesson here other than practicing. But practicing when I'm still not locked on is a problem. I think there should be more here - much more than just referring to old lessons.

I'd like some other tips, strategies, something to help. Comments have been slightly helpful, but it wasn't enough for me to feel even a little confident moving forward.

Confirm action

Are you sure?