I think the Kumar example is just confusing because it can be applied so easily to real world setting and your brain jumps to "but he is late! he will be cited!" For the purpose of LSAT we're all expected to ignore what we already know and just focus on the text.

Like for me it helped to change the example to "a person can leave Disney World only if they punch Mickey Mouse in the guts" IMO the more ridiculous the better. Here the necessary condition is "punch Mickey" and sufficient condition is "leave Disney World" right? Now consider the phrase "Kumar punched Mickey Mouse in the guts." Do we have enough info to infer that Kumar has left Disney World? The answer would be no; we know that Kumar CAN leave Disney World now (=he has fulfilled necessary condition), but we don't know if he DID leave or not (sufficient condition).

Now if the original phrasing was "a person leaves Disney World if they punch Mickey Mouse in the guts" Kumar punching Mickey automatically means that he left Disney.

Hope this helps because this was tripping me up for a while!

Joke's on you I didn't even see A as a trap answer because I totally missed the confectioners trade association part!!

I should read more gooder.

This might be just a me thing but I usually do like 1-2 concepts a day so sometimes I don't remember the acronyms for previous concepts right off the bat and it's kind of annoying to google MSS, MBT, and PAI every time. It'd be helpful to link them to the lessons when they come up #feedback

I am so frustrated because I can't use Lawgic correctly. I often don't get why something is a sufficient vs. necessary and mess up the chain. the thing is when I don't use Lawgic and just use my instincts I get these questions right almost all the time. Is there a point in keep trying to master Lawgic if it just doesn't click with me?

On a similar boat here! I'm taking one this Saturday and my last PT is from like a month ago. I've only taken like 3 PTs in total and my last one was a really good score so I didn't want to discourage myself by taking another and getting lower scores. I've been focused on the curriculum and drilling lots and lots of questions (I've actually exhausted the drilling pool at this point) and am feeling pretty confident. If I bomb the real test I guess I'll take that as a cue to take more PTs for November but for now I am cautiously optimistic XD Good luck to both of us!

The default setting for drills is that it pools from older PTs (I think PT 101-130 or something like that) only. When you do PT just do the more recent ones they'll be more indicative of current LSAT trends anyways and they'll be brand new questions.

For the lessons I feel like we should just have the drill first and then see the explanation? just seeing the explanation video without doing the question myself isn't as helpful because I'm just passively listening to "this is correct" instead of being engaged and comparing what I thought to what is correct.