The question is asking whether the two speakers agree or disagree. If one of the speakers does not express an opinion on the matter, you can immediately determine that it is impossible for them to either agree or disagree.

After all, how can you disagree with someone if they don't have any opinion at all?

I have made a lot of progress in 2 months (174 PT :D) so I understand this now. Doing some of the later lessons helps.

Domain: anyone

Feed daily --> develop attachment

/develop attachment --> /feed daily

*first 10 years of their career

typo

I will rephrase my point.

(A) does help us weaken that the idea that "lower pay is justified for valuable training" because the senior reporters are making only as much as the competitors. Therefore, their lifetime earnings would be less than at competitor firms and any shortfall that might exist in the reporters’ salaries is not compensated by the valueless training.

Is somebody is paid $20/hr for the first 10 years of their career + "valuable" training, and then $35/hr for the next 20 years, then their lifetime earnings will be less than someone paid $25/hr for the first 10 years of their training without training, and then $35/hr for the next 20 years.

#feedback #help

A should be correct. This suggests that the lower salaries earlier in their careers is not compensated for higher salaries later in their careers. So, the company's "training" does not make them better or more productive reporters.

This was a pretty tough passage!

DSFCPEDU is crazy lol

tbh the distinction between conditional and causal logic is useless for the LSAT. You never need to know that

Are you taking your practice tests under the same conditions every time? I would do it on a Saturday or Sunday morning when you are feeling good and fresh.

1-2 PT per week is sufficient, if you do more you could burn out or see score decreases.

What is your average PT? What is your highest PT?

the either/or wording threw me off

Okay, I reframed the argument to make the flaw more obvious:

Manhattan → NYC → NYS

Only people from New York State live in New York City, and only those who live in NYC live in Manhattan. It follows that only Manhattanites are New Yorkers.

The argument ignores the fact that some New Yorkers are not from Manhattan.

#feedback #help

Can somebody re-word the last sentence of the stimulus (the conclusion). I interpreted the conclusion as "appreciate advances --> computer science," which would be valid.

#help #feedback

Considering this is a 5/5 difficulty question and 40% of people selected B, JY did not spend enough time on this choice.

To rule out B, are we supposed to assume that the essayist's anecdotal experience is not at all representative of the population as a whole? Therefore, it is possible that most people are intelligent and wise and the essayist just happens to meet people who do not have both of these characteristics?

Also there is a typo on this page: "It you got it right, then you should feel great about yourself!"

Yeah this question was so poorly written. What the fuck LSAC?

How are we to assume that the ivory ban is an international measure? How are we to assume that Zimbabwe is benefitting from culling the elephant herds? How are we to assume that Zimbabwe is not in some way responsible for the poaching problem?

Also, for answer choice C (which I picked), I could definitely argue that an international embargo infringes on a nation's economic sovereignty.

yeah this was a great lesson

If you budget your time well and spend no more than a minute on easy questions (3/5 difficulty or lower), you should be able to return to a few difficult questions you flagged and spend 2-3 minutes on them.

For most questions, diagramming is a waste of time.

In the stimulus, the press is making a false assumption about what the public is interested in

Thinking about these three framings was helpful!

I ruled out B also because "nutrition" is an "organic" factor, so it just strengthens the existing hypothesis.

Not sure if that reasoning makes sense.

OH MY GOD I DID NOT SEE THE WORD EXCEPT WTF

I think JY misses part of the flaw here.

The way that the stimulus moves from “criminals” to “the law-abiding majority” is fallacious. If criminals are not responsible for their crimes, they are not criminals, making them part of the law-abiding majority, making them responsible for their environment, making them responsible for their criminal actions.

But, as JY says, it is also the case that holding the law-abiding majority responsible for creating an environment that caused criminal actions contradicts the implicit principle that criminals should not be held responsible for their actions.

This argument suffers from a false binary fallacy! I should have noticed that.

This is an absolutely stupid question. Are you kidding LSAC?

There is a reason we don't see many emotional and subjective questions on the LSAT.

I have made a lot of progress in my studies that past two weeks and now I see the issue with E. It is too strong or over-inclusive. If E is true, the argument is in the stimulus is true. But E does not HAVE to be. There could be other ways to do more harm than good in attempting to assess one's own medical condition.

B, on the other hand, is completely necessary no matter what

Still don't understand how D is incorrect for question 9...