@ yes, that makes sense. Thanks for sharing!

Sufficient Assumption Question.

This question becomes much easier if we treat the phrase "few serious ecological problems" to be synonymous with "no serious ecological problems."

~GM = Environmental problem that is not the result of Gov't mismanagement

MC = Major changes in consumer habits

EE = Economically Enticing

SEP = Serious ecological problems

Stimulus:

~GM --> MC --> EE

therefore

SEP --> EE

The correct answer will link either SEP --> ~GM or SEP --> MC

(A) translates into SEP --> ~GM which provides us with the link needed and is the correct answer choice

(B) "Economically Feasbile" is entirely irrelevant to the argument. We need a link to "Economically Enticing." Eliminate

(C) This just says MC can be EE but does nothing to link SEP too EE. Eliminate

(D) Translates into ~GM most SEP which would only allow us to conclude SEP some EE (valid argument form A-->B; A most C; then B some C). Eliminate

(E) Translates into SEP --> ~MC which does not link us to EE. Eliminate

What I don't understand is why I can equate "few serious ecological problems" to "no serious ecological problems"

Any comments/thoughts on the logic above are appreciated.

Thanks.

Congratulations! What would you say are a couple things that were important in helping you jump from the 160s into the 170 territory?

How many pages of scrap paper are provided and is that number standard across all test centers? Thanks for the insights.

W= wrong for the government to restrict liberty

FCH = cases where failing to restrict liberty would allow individuals to cause harm

O = To Offend

First sentence of stimulus can be translated:

~W --> FCH

Second half of last sentence of stimulus can be translated:

O --> ~FCH (is not a case where failing to restrict liberty would allow individuals to cause harm)

Taking the two above, we can combine to the following:

O --> ~FCH --> W

We can only conclude about what is wrong. We know nothing about what is not wrong or what is offensive. So eliminate answer choices B, C and D immediately.

Answer choice E mentions "serious" harm, which is not covered in the stimulus.

Answer choice A is correct. "only offensive" is critical because it eliminates the possibility that there are other aspects to the publication of literature that would cause harm.

@ JY put this up on his homepage and it really helped me through my LSAT experience. "I made every mistake that could be made. But I kept pushing..." -Descartes. When I was studying for the LSAT, I wrote that on a piece of paper and hung it up on the wall in front of my desk. It helped me get through the discouraging times you are describing. I hope this helps. Good luck!!

Thank you @ and @ for the resources!

@ I would watch a couple of the videos JY posts of himself taking actual logic game sections. My advice is to be very organized and write down each rule vertically from the first rule to the last rule. Sometimes you can incorporate a rule directly into the diagram. It is often worth spending more time upfront making additional inferences and incorporating those in your diagram. This often leads to increased speed answering the questions and saving you time overall in completing the game. One more bit of advice. Avoid paralysis. Know when rules trigger and when they become irrelevant. I hope some of this helps.

Congratulations! Im not an admissions expert but I would suspect all of them.

Not everyone learns logic games at the same speed. Generally I would use earlier PTs to practice in an untimed setting prioritizing being fundamentally sound and accurate over being fast. As you become fundamentally sound, I would recommend starting to incorporate the timing element. I would base your decision on when to take timed PTs more on the rate of your progress rather than at a specific, pre-determined PT number.

For me personally, it took about 40 PTs before I started to feel more comfortable with the section (consistently missing between 0 and 4 depending on the difficulty of that particular section)