I realize what J.Y did is to negate the logic clause and open the embedded clause. He firstly negates the some statement by "-> and negate" and then moves the embedded sufficiency "65+" out of the bracket and add "and" to it. So we know what if it is not the case of answer choice E. And we figure out that it totally destroies the argument in the stimulus. Can someone please confirm my understanding? Thank you!

I also sucked into C. But I am willing to share my understanding why C is not correct. Firstly, what's the stimulus conclusion? "even if discredit a few items, the overall body will still has basis of strength." I checked other buddies' comments, I feel answer C does not even pass the "factual standard". Look at the stimulus, it says that getting rid of some strands would make the rope weaker, but it will still hold because there are tons of other strands. And it concludes that even if a few part be discredited, the overall body would still has basis of strength. Does the argument overlook the fact that part of the evidence be discredited would reduce the power of overall body? I think it does not. It even says that in the rope analogy The very subtle difference is the phrase of choice C, "the overall body will also be discredit." Yeah, but discredit how much? 1%? 2%? If we choose C, we need to assume that the rate of discredit on the overall body is enough to get rid of the whole body of evidence, i.e. get rid of its basis of strength.

This perfectly answered my question. Thank you!

Thank you E.CH. Poon. Since English is not my first language, I am not good at distinguishing words, such as on, of, for. Isn't it because the word "on" is introducing where the source comes from? So instead of the common conception of morality's source is the oratory of litigants, but rather the source of oratory of litigants is on (comes from) common conception of morality?

Really appreciate your help.

Can someone please help me figuring out the grammar of the last sentence? Which one is the good source of data? My intuition says the common morality conception is the good source of data that the litigants can use in courtroom. However, it seems the stimulus says different things. I feel the stimulus is saying litigants' oratory is a good source for the common conception of morality. It means that the litigants' argument will become the source of moral codes held by the jurors. I know this makes no sense, but I could not puzzle out the grammar.

But isn't because the critics traditionally missed the "social vision", the social vision in a work is irrelevant to them? I feel like it is more directly to know that critics does not take into account of the "social vision". For D, since the passage did not give any conditional statement. The Road Map does not sufficiently cause acceptance. Help Please!

Oh, I misread it. Thank you so much!

Yeah, spent 10 minutes to figure out what they try to say. And it leaves possibility that those they surveyed were those they consulted before, which may make the survey unrepresentative or biased. Very tricky to me.

Anyway, thank you E. Ch. Poon!

Why D is irrelevant? It seems to me that the stimulus is talking about why the residence choose to live in the capital city, because they prefer to live in big city. And D destroy this argument, it raised a point that it is not because they prefer to live in big city, they prefer it because it is the capital.

I did not understand the connection between the first and the third sentences. The first sentence is obvious: stating the 75% of the authority who took the survey actually prefer this product. And this is the flaw the advertisement has made. However, the third sentence is really tricky. I am still not quite sure what it tries to tell. Seems like it's answering why "75% of authority prefer this product": because it is a product that we consult the authority during the production, that is why 75% authority prefer this product.

Do I interpret this correctly? I would appreciate your confirmation.

Thank you so much! This is a lesson I need to take. I think I confuse "must" with "should".

Thank you E.CH.Poon. Doesn't "should" plays similar role as "must", introducing necessity?

I get this question right but with uncertainty. The first sentence has two indicators: only and should. However, it seems like "only" is playing the role of "the only". Could someone please help me to figure out why "only" can indicates the sufficiency? Is this random or is a grammar exception?

I was hesitating the same as you. Read twice that the stimulus is talking about "protecting natural habitat". Based on my limited knowledge of science and environment, refuges are not equal to natural habitat; however, it seems that B is the best choice, since those wrongs are too wrong. Appreciate you sharing about your logic in this question. Please let me know if you have any new explanation about B as a correct answer.

Wonderful explanation. I was confused by the embedded phrase "during occasion mill shut down." What does this to do with the support? I did not understood "decompose". I am not a science person, the first time when I see "decompose", I thought it has the same meaning as "spread". You cannot imagine how wrong I processed this argument at the first place. Although I got this question right both in graded test and BR, probably because all the other choices are so worng. Until I read your explanation, I totally understand this question. Thank you.

Hi @mahdiall408

Let me share what I feel about it, since I also registered December 5th, and it is my first Lsat. I just started 7 sage program on May. I am an international student, I did not come back to my country for the whole summer, that's why my president come to DC today (just kidding), because I decided to at least finish the core curriculum during the summer. For the whole summer, I almost had more than 90 days boring life: get up, eat breakfast, Lsat, Lsat, Lsat, 7sage, 7sage, smoke,lunch, smoke, nap, Lsat, gym, smoke, watch soccer, sleep. I felt burned out during that time as well. I was alone all the time, no one understand what I am doing.

When September comes, I totally felt freaked out, because I cannot imagine how I can both deal with my college course and Lsat. But you know what, just do it! I realize I am those type of person, no matter I worry or not, my discipline will still push me to do that. If that is the case, then worry does nothing but make useless stress. Just do it, and forget about the rights and wrongs for a moment, there are only something you need BR and help you know what you don't know with something you do not BR.

Even beyond that, you should try to love Lsat. I know it is hard, but you cannot deny it teaches and will teach you a lot of things. It trains your mind, make you tough.... If you see it as a burden, you would not do it with pleasure. How can you improve on it with the motivation of escaping from it asap? So love it.

I agree you need to get couple days off, like I usually do PT on Wednesday and Saturday, but I decide to cancel PT on tmr, because I want to have drinks with friends tonight. Most importantly, go to do some sports every day. During the summer, around 4 pm, I started to lose focus and feel it is the end of my life (since I already studied 7 hours at that time); I forced me to do some weight train and aerobics. You know what, I feel relaxed and ready to study Lsat for the next day. That is the magic of sport. Do not let tiresome of the day make you down even without notice.

@nye887085 Thank you, I tried this once, and it really helps me to have more time to finish those whose patterns are quite familiar to me. What bothers me a lot is that when I watch the video explanation, things become much clear and I can easily recall the inference when I redo those games; however, when I do new PT, I will encounter at least 2 games which I have no idea. It seems I still have a lot of to do to max up my LG. I am quite worried about if I can improve enough before I actually take the test.

@974 As you notice, I am doing the BR on the copy I tested on. I did not know that this is a bad idea, thank you for pointing this out. You are also right that I am very bad at LG, usually I get the lowest percentage at this section. I have followed the method to practice LG all the time, but it seems I have not improve much in LG. Any suggestion?

So I just finished my third PT and blind review. I feel like "time" is really a big issue for me currently. For logic, I usually have no time for 4 questions, sometimes when I skipped some "hard" ones, I end up with blindly circling them, cos I have no time. For reading, I usually have only 5 minutes when I heat the last article. For games, I usually have 5-6 minutes for the last game of that section. Is this normal for a newbie? In addition, two questions come up with my mind. First, how you guys do blind review for Reading? I usually have 1-2 articles which I feel totally lost in a single section.I re-read all the four articles and do all the questions again for blind review; but I look at the video for each article when I just finish blind review of that article. Another question is how you guys circle the bubble sheet. I feel like it is better for me to circle each question once I just finish that question, cos if I circle all of them when I finish the whole section, I would end up with running out of time.

I would appreciate your help and suggestion.

I could not translate the second premise into Lawgic language. This (think a difficult task as a challenge) is how people who are confident about their own ability regard such tasks. I remember "is" is at second group, therefore, anything after "is" is NC. So how we get the premise that COA -> TDC ?

Thank you so much for sharing these valuable experience with me. I will keep being freaked out and crazily BR :D

Thank you @2543.janson35 . You make me feel encouraged so much.

Thank you so much guys. I am so sorry that I did not reply these wonderful comments immediately on the other day, because my school just started. I would definitely take your comments, since I decide to take my first LSAT on this December, so surly 2 PTs every week and carefully BR. I am wondering how do you guys felt when you first took PT, because I felt I got lost in reading section very quickly (probably because I did not do PT on print papers but on my tablet, I did not make any notes while reading). I also felt I need to improve my logical games so badly. When I did the problem sets of logical games in the core curriculum. I literally cannot finish any single logical game by myself, so I followed J.Y 's method: redo all the logical games 8 to 10 times. I also did not finish all the logical games by myself independently in my first PT last week, but I think I've been improved. Is this the correct path? I mean, I doubt if I can get the goal of 0 loss in logical games eventually, because I could not finish any single logical games 1 month ago. During the past years, LSAT scared me because of it difficulty, 0 loss in logical game is like a magic to me which I cannot imagine. That's why me, as a newbie, beg for you sharing your experience with me.

In addition, how you guys took the PT. J.Y recommends us to make our PT situation the same as the situation in which we take real LSAT. I think it is a great idea. However, I realize that each PT will cost me around 20 printing papers. I am so scared to cut many trees like this. However, if you guys think this is the most helpful way to do PT, I will definitely oblige it :).

I really appreciate your sharing and helps.