Started from the bottom now we're here...

yeah this one went right over my head. Uh oh.

This question beat me, robbed me, and hung me by my ankles in the streets.

#feedback i love you <3

holy crap, it's Jimmy McGill from the hit series Better Call Saul and Breaking Bad! If I find Harvey Specter in here, I'll eat a phone book.

If I see a similar question to this on the exam, I'll crash out, cry, and skip it because ain't nobody got time for that.

I followed the same logic.

Actively getting my ass handed to me here.

these questions are going to be the end of me

REAL

I should have read the question better, I chose C prior to blind review as I thought it was what the stem was SUPPORTING, not REJECTING! Glad I caught it on blind review.

The way I understand it is that if it's Independent, then it's not selling gerbils, and if it's not selling gerbils and it's selling fish, then it has to be selling birds. Focus on the 'However' statement.

In reality, if a question like this pops up on the test and you don't understand it after your first readthrough, I'd probably just skip it and come back to it. No need to toss a word salad around and fumble precious time.

Holy cow it's Jimmy, the main character from the hit TV show, Better Call Saul on AMC!

zamn everybody got bad relationships... but a 95 ain't shabby

For the sake of the short time we have per question I don't think we are necessarily supposed to determine if there are explanations beyond the context clues of the question itself.

When we read the question "The editorial undermines the conclusion of the causal argument by:", we are able to utilize the phrasing of the latter half of the blurb given where it states 'but this may not be true...' and almost immediately pick out D due to the fact that it is the only one that actively is undermining the original statement by offering an alternative argument!

EDIT: Just noticed you were talking about the questions at the bottom of the page. These questions are all meant to build off each other in an individual exercise, so try coming up with your own correlation, come up with a causal explanation, offer up alternatives, and then determine if they counter it! I'd recommend looking back at the Dolphin w- algae vs toxins argument from earlier in the chapter!

#feedback it's a crime that you would put so many banger paragraphs in here and NOT have them voiced over with a video.

"Or if you're impatient, you could capture some dolphins, put them in a tank with some blooming algae and fish, then watch to see what happens. All while stroking Mr. Fat Cat and twirling your mustache, of course. If the dolphins die, then congratulations! You're an evil motherfucker. If the dolphins live, then you're just gonna have to find another way to kill dolphins."

Peak.

So just to make sure I'm correct: In order to find the strongest hypothesis, we just ask 'how'? I feel like that might be intuitive if we had more than a minute and a half per question... Someone clear it up for me please!

#feedback

I think the largest problem with this question is that it does not address the importance of 'will' in the argument. By changing 'will' to 'won't', it fundamentally makes the question wrong because blackouts have several means of occurring, whereas 'don't' does not necessarily mean they won't happen, but it rules out the possibility of a heatwave causing the problem.

I think the majority of this concern could have been avoided if you provided a flipped version of 'If the heatwave abates, then blackouts won't occur'.

TLDR: Regardless of how you flip it, the word 'will' implies that it is necessary for blackouts to occur if there is a heatwave, thus making it (heatwaves) your sufficient condition regardless of negation.

maybe they had an excuse, parent call or something that prevents them from being marked late.

Agreed. I think it works more to recognize your indicators and take mental note of your superset and subset.

I'm not necessarily the greatest fan of 'Lawgic'. I'd prefer a method to break down the massive questions on the LSAT quickly without having to take time to draw up maps or scientific notation. Unfortunately, I have no alternative ideas than shortening the general idea down currently.