@IvonneRosario Yup this is the workaround I've been using — bookmarking classes to watch and then removing the bookmark once I've watched them. It just gets messy though as new classes are added, I watch some classes but need to come back to the class at a later time, do I unbookmark it, do I just keep a separate log, etc.. If I had to pick though, I'm still team prioritizing a proper dark mode haha.

@RUTHZANDERS i won't register until im PTing within my range, but I'm hoping to take it in the late summer or Fall this year!

We are learning a new language! The language of Lawgic! I'm pivoting from a career in digital marketing — we've got this!

LSAT is more important! It's the law school admissions test, and it's written to be an indicator of your potential success in 1L. If your undergrad GPA is low, that's tough for sure, but that's what addendums are for!

Doing the drills is one thing — are you deeply Reviewing the questions you're missing? Deep review = understanding Why you got it wrong, why the wrong answers are truly wrong, and why the right answer is correct + why you missed the right answer, and what will you do differently the next time. This takes a while, but it's helping me!

@KevinLin thank you for that! I appreciate the insight—the parentheses do change the meaning

looks like both pages have the same content actually haha. just different formats~

@MichaelWright nah that wasn't it (But that looks very handy too!) i did a quick search and this was the page I was thinking of: https://7sage.com/lsat-resources/lr-question-types

@Izzy they have a breakdown of strategy and approach for all the different question types, and drills for those question types! Weaken and all.

7Sage has a full summary of what you’re looking for I think. If you google “7sage logical reasoning question types guide” you should see a blog post that details Strategy, Trap Answers, Question Stem keywords, etc. for each of the different question types!

I'm in the same spot! Unemployed, and very budget conscious. I'm booking several classes tomorrow for the Free Live Class day going on and I'm hoping to use it as a trial run for the Live plan. I think a lot of advice about hiring 1-on-1 tutoring is relevant, but most people aren't taking full advantage of less expensive options before defaulting to that very expensive option. My hope is to commit to attending the relevant Live classes and see how that real-time, dedicated support in a group setting helps! If I still feel like I need more hands-on support, I'll look into tutoring. But on my end, I know I've still got a lot to learn on my own (I'm about halfway through 7Sage CC) before investing in a tutor would make strategic sense!

premises:

visitors ←some→ harm animals

know that practices harm → would not harm

contrapositive:

would harm animals → did not know that practices harm

Conclusion:

visitors ←some→ harm animals would harm animals → did not know that practices harm

simplified:

visitors ←some→ NOT know that practices harm

@KevinLin huh! Yeah fair enough — thanks for taking the time!

Prof. Sprout's Mandrake inspections are usually conducted on Mondays.

I read “Usually” as “Many times” or “Sometimes” because I don’t see how we can infer that this inspection is happening 51% of Mondays.

Sprout <-s-> Monday

So if today is Monday, there is a chance that Sprout’s class is happening. And if Sprout’s class is happening, today is probably Monday.

I’m really not clear on Usually becoming Most.

whoah whoah whoah. Why are we okay to assume “Usually” = “Most”? Especially after drilling into us that “Many” absolutely does not equal “Most”?

@haena Especially when the breakdown b/w the 4 wrong answers is wildly skewed towards one of the wrong answer choices! If all 4 of the wrong answers have an even smattering of 10% here, 8% there, okay that makes sense. But when 60% of people picked B instead of D, something in B is trapping hard!!

@nayashp funny enough i just ordered that book last week after seeing it so highly recommended on reddit haha. Yeah - I've found the core curriculum to be super helpful for the foundations and theory of logic, but I am struggling with quickly applying those foundations on the test. I'm looking forward to getting the book!

I do the same thing with #1. I read the question stem, I read the stimulus, then I have to read the stem again and read the stimulus again — it's a total time sink.

The better thing to do is to read the stimulus first, and read it and understand it. But I struggle with knowing what in the stimulus is relevant to the question and answer choices! So I feel like I still end up re-reading anyway? Definitely looking for help on this. Might end up doing the tutoring packages

@lilywong If you’re a Resident, Then animals are Prohibited. Someone in another comment section mentioned thinking of the “necessary” condition as the result that’s activated by the “sufficient” condition. So if you’re a resident, that activates the prohibition of animals in the building. I’m not sure if that’s what you were asking?

@laurenstudies came here to make this exact comment lol.

I guess the idea is that the “or” becomes an arrow if we’re also negating one of the disjuncts.

If you live in NYC then you either Filed Taxes, or Paid Penalty aka NYC > (FT or PP)

so if you did not File Taxes aka /FT, you must have Paid the Penalty.

NYC > /FT > PP

that’s also where the whole combining the sufficient of the embedded conditional comes in. /FT > PP is an embedded conditional (If no Filed Taxes, then Paid Penalty). So we can simplify this by saying

NYC and /FT > PP

@LemonDragon I second the Visa giftcard/paypal credit! Also makes it more flexible to use (and more enticing!)

@LincolnBrown I found the modifier lessons helpful here for slicing through the noise! Bolded words below are the core of the sentence, non-bolded words are modifiers.

None of the recent technological advances in producing electric power at photovoltaic plants can be applied to producing power at traditional plants.

Advances -> /applied to producing power

applied to producing power -> /advances

silly question with the over sharing example — is it possible to reframe it as a conditional logic statement?

wasn’t in school -> I peed my pants (conditional)

I didn’t pee my pants -> I was in school (contrapositive)

It’s not a Lawgic moment, because the sentence isn’t really arguing for anything or making a conclusive statement, but doesn’t the same structure apply?