Guys, I just wanted to let you guys know how thankful I am. Because of you guys, I decided not to smoke, but more importantly, I began to believe in myself more. Corny... I know...

But, only a week ago, I felt rather hopeless, especially in regards to my mental strength and discipline.

Not feeling hopeless alone allowed me to perform better in many aspects of my LSAT abilities and I really cannot thank you guys enough for that.

I hope that I can meet you guys in the near future either at the top Law Schools we will attend or in a professional setting.

Until that time,

Thank you very much for explaining the difficulty of flaw questions...

I think identifying the flaw (pre-phrasing) before moving into the answer choices is something I can definitely improve.

But, most of the time, I'm able to determine the flaw or the gap in reasoning. The problem arises because of my inability to identify the answer choice that I've pre-phrased in my head, or to rule out irrelevant answers.

Completely ruling out irrelevant answers is something that's very difficult for me... I tend to make up unwarranted assumptions that make it seem relevant...

As you guys have suggested, I will do more flaw drills until I begin to notice the basic patterns in these questions.

I guess I'm worried because I feel like I've hit a road block and it's difficult for me to realize what I'm lacking... I sort of feel like I'm climbing up the wrong mountain, and thus wasting my time and energy on things that don't require my attention.

I just want to make sure that I'm on the right path to mastering the LR section.

I've met my goal of consistently scoring -0 to -1 on LG and -5 to -7 on RC. (Recent 5 PTs) I would like to meet my goal of scoring -4 combined for the LR section for the chance of breaking170.

At this point, I feel like meeting my LR goal is out of reach...

I had trouble with this question because of the word "responsible." I read that word to mean "liable", so I was able to negate answer choice A and still make the argument valid. (Even if the government is not capable of rectifying the thing that it indirectly caused, the government can be still "liable.")

Now I realize that the word "responsible" used in the stimulus was more in a sense that the government was the "cause" of an increase in gasoline price.

I had trouble with this question even after 20 minutes of analyzing it. I am becoming quite pessimistic that I'll be able to catch myself in similar situations in the future...

I meant to write some negated = A -> /B and conditional negated = A and /B

Thank you very much... NA section is my weakest section by far, and I am having difficulty improving in this section.

The reason why I feel that the "most" qualifier is not a good candidate for a NA question is because negated form of "most" is not absolute, thus not being able to completely "wreck the argument."

Whereas some statements and basic conditionals, like "all" statements, can be negated in absolute terms, which will allow them to completely "wreck the argument." (A -> /B)

The reason why NA section is hardest for me is because I can't be 100% certain that the answer is correct, although other sections like SA, MBT, PSA, etc, I can be 100% certain.

For the NA questions, I always find myself doubting between a very subtle statement versus a strengthening statement, even if I use the negation test. The negated forms of both statements look like they wreck the argument...

I think I need more practice with denying the relationship and mastering the lawgic negation.

When I read through this stimulus, I had a different assumption with the first sentence. I thought that it could still be possible that two or more people have the same interpretation of the poem, thus agree upon it, even if they assign meaning to it individually.

For instance, Al can think that the poem's cool and Bob could also think it's cool, even though they assigned meaning to it individually. So, they will still be able to aesthetically evaluate the poem, because they will end up agreeing on each other's interpretation of the poem.

That was the reason why this question gave me a lot of problem. I thought the last sentence of the stimulus was quite irrelevant, for the popular belief being true doesn't rule out the possibility of two people agreeing upon the same interpretation.

Can somebody explain this to me please? Thank you.

JY mistakenly reads answer choice E's "physiologically" as "psychologically." I think this can be quite confusing, especially because the stimulus mostly hinges on the psychological aspect (anger).

His logic still stands, but I think E becomes much more attractive if we clearly define the difference between physiological from psychological. For instance, his example of "hunger" can be both psychological and physiological. If we assume that hunger is psychological, then the argument isn't weakened much, because heart disease still ends up being causally related with psychological aspects.

Clearly differentiating between the two concepts greatly increases the possibility of a spurious relationship between anger and heart disease, because it rules out the possibility of the third factor being psychological.

The only reason why I'm mentioning this is because we are choosing an answer choice that is "descriptive" of the stimulus - an a.c. that rephrases the part that is flawed-, not choosing an answer choice that is descriptive of the type of flaw in the reasoning - the usual type of answer choices.

I think that's the reason why Answer Choice E was popular. We were relatively certain that the flaw was something along the lines of "causation confusion," so we were quick to skim over and choose the answer choice that states "not necessarily."

Even J.Y. himself mentions that the LSAT "pulls a fast one on us with the question stem" because it was asking for the "flawed reasoning" of the Attorney, not the flaw.

I guess my question is: is this type of question an outlier? I want to sort of have one thought process for the flaw questions, and would prefer not to constantly differentiate whether the question is asking for the flaw, or its part in reasoning that is flawed.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. I really appreciate it.

I feel that this question categorizes more as a MoR, or MISC, than a Flaw/Descriptive.

Although we were determining the argument's "flaw", we had to choose an answer choice that summarized the Attorney's flawed "Reasoning", not its actual flaw. The correct answer choice is exceedingly different from the normal flaw a.c.

If this question wasn't categorized under flaw drills, I think more people would have gotten this answer correctly, especially because we've already established a strong foundation for MoR questions.

@ You allegedly trapped out the bandwidth, getting those pdfs for free. I'm under the assumption that you were not actually involved in any copyright infringement ;)

If the last sentence concluded with "and so is not of scientific interest." (omitting the informative part) can the answer choice be categorized as a NA?

Is the only reason why answer choice E being a SA because it did not also include the the part about the claim being "informative?"

I'm getting to be too meticulous about differentiating between NA and SA answers, within the NA questions, and it has been eating up my time A LOT!

NA section is my weakest section by far and additional help to mastering this section will be much appreciated.

Thank you.

I chose D and ruled out C twice, first during the actual PT and during the BR.

I understood the assumption that agricultural products was one of the factors attributing to the increased urbanization. However, I thought that the reason for the increased urbanization was due to an abundance of agricultural products, not scarcity of agricultural products.

Basic economic principle outlines that increased supply, while demand remaining constant, decreases price. Therefore, I made an analysis that the reason for an increased urbanization was because people from the rural areas could no longer support their way of life by farming agricultural products, due to an influx of agricultural imports from abroad. This is actually the case in Mexico and many other countries that are affected by NAFTA.

That's the reason why I chose the answer D. An increase in agricultural imports was caused by trade imbalances between the countries.

I still don't get this question even after watching JY's explanation... I was hoping if someone could help me correct my logic in this question.

It's about time that they released an official bundle of the missing PTs...

It was way too easy for people to get the unlicensed copies of the missing PTs by googling.

Only problem I have with the 10 Actual bundles is that they only give you a single page for the logic games instead of two pages. I hope they fixed it with this new release.

Although, I chose E because it was the the "most strongly" supported answer, but I still have trouble accepting this answer.

The stimulus makes an implicit statement that egg shell is different from the the inside of the egg. From this we are forced to make an assumption that egg shells cannot be considered as "food" because they can touch contaminated Styrofoam and still be safe to consume.

Since the recycled Styrofoam only touches the egg shells, not the egg whites and yolks, we cannot say that "some food containers made out of recycled Styrofoam contacts food it contains."