Honestly, I would advise you to figure out what were you focusing on. What about the argument did you not truly understand? Take time to reflect on this question. Focusing on NA questions will help you answer these types of questions. Because NA questions often have a change of scope. You go from one idea to the next, and your job to point out the assumption.

LG was easy but weird. I skipped the first game after first read, because it was not a usual game, did the second game, finished it well. Read the third game, it was unusual, so i skipped it, Did the fourth game, it was easy. Reread the first LG, and it was easy, and I understood it. Then did the 3rd game, it was easy, but did not finish the last 2 questions in time. I am feeling like a -3 on this LG. Not happy. RC felt really hard, and RC tends to be my strongest section. It felt really hard. I had to trust my low resolution, because my high resolution was not good. LR, I was hoping the one with 25 was not experimental. But oh well. the first LR with 26 was hard.

Okay I'm going to answer without looking at the answer choices. I only read the stimulus. Let me know if it helps you understand.

Basically, "you have a claim without an explanation." That is the flaw.

Whoever stole the diamond must have worn gloves. How the hell do you come to that conclusion, just by the fact that you only have one person fingerprints on the premises. Nothing explains why that person necessarily wore gloves.

So I would look for an argument that makes claim but does provide enough justification or explanation to support the claim. This is a classic LSAT question or some would say cookie cutter question.

"Claim with no support or very weak support" in other words a claim that requires us to make reject many assumptions and make many assumptions to get to the claim.

E.g. I need to assume that only way not to get fingerprints on the premises is to wear gloves. It could be that I used a pliers without wearing gloves to open everything and steal the jewelry. (I hope you see where I am going with this).

Hi! I want to preface that I did not watch the video because I didn't want to have bias in my reasoning.

First, the question type is a most strongly supported, so check for assumptions and look for structures that will guide you to make good inferences, but I don't want us to even focus on question type. Let's just focus on the argument structure.

Ctx - Physicists make a claim

Arg - Biologist made same claim 20 years ago and there were wrong.

Now here is the meat in the reasoning. Look for the change of scope, because that is where the assumption lies.

We are told that for the bioligists that enhancements prevented fraud, but then we are told that for physicists that it is condusive to progress if they do as the bioligists.

Question? - How do we go from preventing fraud to condusive to progress? (This is the change of scope).

By assuming that preventing fraud is condusive to progress or at the very least, we can say that the argument assumes that there is some relationship between preventing fraud and condusive to progress. We can infer that preventing incidents of fraud is good for progress, or conversely, not preventing does not help for progress.

Thanks! I would like to be added to the BR group

Hey @ , thank you for sharing that was awesome! I'd love to share some with you later and get your take . Thanks again

Take it when you are ready scoring above your target score by about 3 points. Depending on what you are aiming for, You can't really set a target date. Focus on being disciplined in your studies and you'll get there

Thank you Sami, I am interested

Generally, you can request the specific amount you want from Direct Plus Loan. If they end up giving you more, you can return it, but you would have paid a bigger amount on the loan origination fee. In the past, I've taken less without any issue, and then requested more if I needed it. Talk to financial aid office, they will give you better guidance.

I foolproofed LG problems sets from CC using the Pacifico method. Everything was timed, take first copy, then watch JY video, then take the second copy. Next day take the third copy, and a week later take the 4th copy. But I already had good understanding of logic games. So it worked out well. If you want to reach mastery, it is worth it foolproofing during the CC whichever method is best for you JY or Pacifico because afterwards, you have RC lessons, then when you are done with CC, you can cycle back to LG by foolproofing LG 1-35. And cycling back content where you have prior knowledge helps you develop mastery.

Hey, how's your conceptual understanding of validity? Because understanding validity will help you approach SA or NA questions with greater confidence. Furthermore as you study, you're not going to master these concepts overnight. You will need to cycle back to studying validity, SA, NA to reach a point of mastery. But you can definitely master it. Also if your dealing with a specific question, post the question section, #, and the community will give you better feedback.

@ great question. I loved to hear an answer from a Sage @ @ @

Thank you Jonathan, this was really helpful.

Just be patient, people postpone test, cancel, etc and then you'll get your seat

Do not submit a poem. I've heard from deans of admission at several top 14 schools not to do that, and that every year they receive poems, and just put it to the side.

I would advise not to follow the pacifico method unless you already have a solid footing in logic games. Once you grasp the games very well, then you can follow the Pacifico method, but at first, I believe you would benefit from foolproofing each game until you have it done under JY time even if it takes you 10 copies.

No, you could write it on the scratch paper. I prefer underlining the 1-2 words in each paragraph that will prompt my summary of the structure of each paragraph.

Did anyone with 2LR had an LR with 26 questions

Improve your mindset. You froze cause your thinking too much instead of just doing what is in front of you. Just have the mindset that every time you take a preptest, it is just another opportunity to do your best. And Nov test is just another opportunity to do your best. You can always have another opportunity. Don't raise the stakes. I would sign up for January or March test just for the sake of internalizing that it is just another test. Get lots of sleep. It is the last week before a test. Rest, relax, maybe do some really light review. But take care of self.

Break down of stimulus: (if) maintain deterrence (then) potential aggressor believe that you have superior power that they may not be able to defend if you retaliate

Contrapositive. (If) potential aggressor don't believe you have superior power to retaliate, (then) you cannot maintain deterrence.

Answer D explanation

The country wants to maintain deterence, so it is necessary that potential aggressors believe that country has superior retaliatory power.

Considering that the country has unsurpassed weapons, if countries know what they have then we can infer that they will believe that the country has superior retaliatory power.

Cookie cutter please

Hi #keets993, thank you for the clarity of your explanation. I've seen this pattern for two other questions. Is this a type of case that I should be on the lookout for. Just asking. Thanks in advance, and these questions seem to be very subtle because you have to make an implicit assumption. Secondly, how do you avoid all the distractors in the stimulus that makes you focus on the relationship between the fact sets? Third a more general question, does a wrong MBT answer choice just not have the logical equivalence? More simply asked what is the relationship between a wrong answer choice and the fact set? Is it even appropriate for me to ask the question?

I think I figured it out, can someone confirm it, basically, since 75 brands of popcorn account for more than half of sales account, then we can substitute microwave products of that take 3 min less with the 75 brands of popcorn.

Could someone help me understand the logical reasoning property attached to this question.

Thanks for the motivation

Hey Courtney,

I'll do my best attempt.

The conclusion of the argument is that recently discovered fossil evidence cast doubt on evolutionary theory that dinosaurs are closer to reptiles than other classes of animals.

Why? A phenomenon (a fact observed or existence of something), is closely related to present phenomenon that has certain correlations.

The phenomenon is that fossils show that some dinosaurs had hollow bones.

Today, only warm blooded creatures have hollow bones - (present day correlation of this phenomenon)

Dinosaur had well developed sense of sight and hearing (another phenomenon) --> (no correlation with present day cold blooded reptiles) - This is phenomenon that casts the most doubt that dinosaurs are closer to reptiles.

dinosaurs arched mouth roof allowed it breath and eat, thus fast breathing animals (present day correlation of this phenomenon of warm blooded animals)

The argument is flawed in the sense that it assumes that all reptiles have always been cold blooded, and that similar traits in the past and present is sufficient enough to establish that an animal is closely related.

I want to note that this question is very old, and that it is phrased in a way that is not as clear, I mostly got this answer through process of elimination versus finding the reasoning method. Because a better explanation of the reasoning method would have been that the author presents evidence showing a past and present phenomenon is closely correlated with present day warm blooded animals than present day cold blooded animals.

I'd love to also get somewhere to share their thoughts