Where can we purchase the webinar?

Is there a way to see how long the exam is scheduled for on ProctorU? I have approved extended time and want to make sure this accounted for on ProctorU.

I'm interested in the Economist issues if the offer is still available!

By saying the R's column is just an attempt to please her loyal readers the author is calling R's motives into question. The author previously disagrees with this approach and is therefore employing a tacit at one point that it elsewhere objects to (e).

interested as well!

Happy to look over yours! I am still finalizing my own and would appreciate your feedback once mine is wrapped up.

QUESTION TYPE: Weaken.

CONCLUSION: Yu: It cannot be true that no food served there contains products grown with pesticides. (There’s at least one item at the restaurant that contains chemical pesticides.)

REASONING: Jason purchases produce from Kelly’s Grocery. MegaFarm unloads food to Kelly’s and they use chemical pesticides on all of its crops. (Therefore, at least one subset of Kelly’s produce contains chemical pesticides.)

ANALYSIS: This is a challenging question. We need to weaken the claim that there must be at least one item at Jason’s restaurant that contains chemical pesticides. My intuition told me to find a premise that introduces a different supplier that contains zero pesticides (answer choice B). This is actually irrelevant, and actually distracts from the conclusion we are trying to weaken. So what if there is another supplier who supplies produce with zero pesticides? We still need to weaken the claim that at Kelly’s Grocery Jason is not selecting produce with pesticides.

A - Not relevant.

B - No. It could still be the case that Jason purchases produce with chemicals from MegaFarm. Just because Jason buys food from several suppliers does not have anything to do with Jason’s choices at Kelly’s.

C - CORRECT. Here we are told that Kelly’s grocery includes pesticide-free produce that, by inference, Jason could select.

D - Not relevant.

E - Not relevant.

Thank you!

I took the October test with 1.5x and scheduled as normal. I also confirmed with the proctor right before starting the exam on the day of & did not reach out in the days leading up to my exam.

Did you have testing accommodations for the SAT or ACT? If so, you are pre-approved for the LSAT. You just need to submit a request form. https://www.lsac.org/lsat/lsac-policy-accommodations-test-takers-disabilities?gclid=Cj0KCQjwxdSHBhCdARIsAG6zhlVOeUTNuE5GEvZ_kHwQQcnMs1NaC37zoVkeuecN6YE7iFDY7xnE_C8aAjyAEALw_wcB

Thank you for all the advice!

I've been studying for over a year and there are still games that stump me. The best thing you can do is to keep practicing. Getting in repetitions will help you better understand the language of logic games. I keep a "wrong answer" journal for logic games that I continuously reference. There are some games that I've done 5+ times. This has helped me recognize when it makes the most sense to split game boards.

Messaged!

Question Type: Parallel Method of Reasoning

Conclusion: We should be suspicious of the newspaper reporter’s claim that the tracks are in poor condition.

Reasoning: The railway authority inspector who recently thoroughly checked the tracks testified that they were in good condition. The inspector has no bias in the matter.

Analysis: We need to find an answer choice that matches the conclusion and premise. For our conclusion, we want something denoting suspicion of an outside claim. For our premise, we want something that demonstrates a thorough check by someone without bias.

A) No. The premise and conclusion do not match.

B) CORRECT. I overlooked this answer choice initially because it says “inspected carefully” within the conclusion (which actually functions as a premise). I thought this was out of place. Remember that for parallel reasoning questions, the order does not have to be exact! Here, the conclusion and premises match (G is a noted paleontologist without vested interest in the case and the conclusion holds that we should be skeptical of P’s claim).

C) No. The premise says that the engineer is the only one who has inspected the bridge. Additionally, our conclusion doesn’t mention being suspicious of an outside claim.

D) No. This answer choice is concluding that, despite a reporter holding opposition leadings, we should accept a claim.

E) No. This answer choice is saying that we should discount a biased claim. Remember, the conclusion is saying that we should be suspicious of an outside claim.

Also interested if it's a relatively small study group!

Does anyone have an example of a similar weakening question?

#help (Added by Admin)

Can we ignore the main conclusion (one should evaluate the consequences of an action...)

for this question stem?

#help (Added by Admin)

Interested :)

When does the time slot sign up begin for the October flex?