#27: Animals killed by Sandside because Rocks formed by this Sandside process.

Alternative hypothesis, No rocks were formed by earthquake , or moved to this area by tornado, so sandslide???? theory can go out of window.

I think LSAT is about summing up things into core, 1-2 line a conclusion supported by core of the premise. Destroy the core or support the core.

The other answers are useless.

Contenders are C and E.

Look closely

C says stoplight installed - ask your self. does that mean congestion? There are plenty of roads with stoplights, but no congestion. This is what new LSAT does. Baits you to make unwarranted one sided assumption.

E directly says congestion

A is not answer because highway would have decreased congestion then. If you go from 3 lanes to 6 lanes of a bridge, obviously you expect congestion to drop. Most people work from suburb in city now can go to suburb faster and thus leaving downtown uncongested. so time would have decreased.

Anyone over 30 passed 165 mark? and how long did you study

I am 38. I managed to get 160-162 in 11 months.

@ said:

Hi, did you use any tutors along the way?

I did not, but from my mistakes that i noted farrr into study. I realized tutor may have cought it and cut time significantly and helped to preserve clean practice tests. Like flaw questions. I was finding every flaw in the argument, but not just the one committed by author. I didnt know why flaw was a big obstacle. But the fact i was finding every flaw, once i realized, i started to get almost all flaw questions write. Also some tweak to negation test. Little things that stops getting -2/-3 in LR but are very important.

@ said:

This is so helpful, thank you!!! I am in a similar position now and trying to push myself but it is hard to stay motivated.

I watched YouTube motivational video. It helped. I was at 158-159. I was all fired up and got my highest 167 lol. Afterward, I would listen to the videos, reignite my motivation and attack. It comes down to fire, concentration, and endurance. Endurance I built by doing 5 passages and two back to back RC.

I was able to nail it here was my reasoning

P: water in/out for stability

P: creature comes in

C: Do this in/out mid ocean

E: There is not a single ship that could maintain stability midocean.

Remember Some-> None negation.

There how are we going to execute the conclusion? We cannot. Wrecked!

Hey Here is simple way to do it. That is how i got to an answer

This is

/X +/Y ←s→ Z →D.

There is only one deduction that can be made. /X and /Y ←s→D

You cannot make a deduction that would happen ALL or EVERY OR MOST unless you repeat Z →D, so your answer will have SOME in it. There is only one answer with that. Pick it and move on!

I though this question was pretty easy, so here I will share my thoughts

First we go from interaction with aspirin - juice to listing ALL KNOWN interaction of drugs.

P: Minor drug interaction can be harmful

eg: aspirin/juice

C: List ALL KNOWN interactions.

C : is out of the window then. see its ALL KNOWN. the argument concedes that we do not/may not know all interactions. So this does not weaken. I can come back and still say that is why i said ALL KNOWN.

D: Point to warnings - you would have to assume warnings are ALL KNOWN interaction. Usually warnings are life-threatening or major interactions. Argument says MINOR drug interactions. Here it does not weaken it. I can say warnings are major, but I am asking for minor. Also, just think about it, for a pharmacist to sit and tell each person of all the interaction, they wont get to the next person in line.

Few holes in the argument

What if this increases the price and make it less affordable

What if it detracts from major and cause deaths

What if harm is negligent

What if patient dont even care/ do not even bother reading it

What if patients are most pt. do not have the knowledge/literacy of understanding the interaction.

Anyone reading this should do this for each argument. LSAT Is all about practicing, not by attempting number of question, but making the most of each question.

I got good one

Frist flaw hinges on having an ability and actually displaying that ability. What if i just do not want to display it for many reasons.

JY is supposedly a genius because he went to IVY league law school

JY messed up on the LSAT

JY is not a genius after all.

Maybe he messed up on LSAT because he did not give a dam about it since he already went to LAW school. He HAS the ability but did not think of a need to DISPLAY that ability.

Absurd easy question but wasted my time, Book clubs and Book store, I though as same. Walmart has online and store also. so ultimate revenue increase either online or store is equitable.

Gap : What if you give anesthesia to gently kill the animal, What if you keep animals in humane environment. Cruel has many issue, feeding is not only, but the author assumes as such.

This is not a bad question

Here is the logic

Inflammatory→ Inappropriate (look at the word therefore introduces conclusion)

Then the argument goes into ad homein (1 flaw, but A.C do not pick on this)

Next It says

/Inflammatory (unless) → /inappropriate (not). This is S-N error. Without Sufficient , Necessary can still happen. i.e conclusion can still be true even if you deny premises. repeated inference in LR question mainly tough one.

They try to confuse student with all the nonsense but core/concept is simple.

just pick this answer when it denies conclusion by denying premise.

Context: Random Event

P: some unusual pattern

Conclusion: organized event

A.C (D): Specific orbit - I mean this is a closest answer, but requires assumption that from the orbit to impact randomness cannot occur. We know earth atmosphere is fluid like water instead of H2O its gases. This fluid causes resistance, and resistance can change trajectory. But wtv other are bad answers either weaken it or unrelated. it is like saying when you jump into pool from diving board you land on the same site each time.

The other flaw is unenthusiastic =/ decreasing voter turnout.

I may not enjoy studying for LSAT, but nonetheless still do it.

X → Y

Conclusion : Y, It must be because of X. Necessary condition can be reached thru C, D, F, H, also

IF X then Y, does not mean C D F H cannot lead to Y. so X MAYBE/ COULD BE but not MUST BE the reasons.

A) is wrong because it is S-N error. Negated conclusion stated as a conclusion.

B) /X + /Y →Z, contrapositive Z → X OR Y. So A.C) refer to this Cooking → Tastiest

not Tastiest = Far less tasty. This question was a matter of seeing Not tastiest = far less tasty. If you replace those that. Then you arrive at answer easily.

C and D are same - cannot have two right answer - eliminate both

E : Half of the P -> C

It only states P, but fails to state C

Dried is inferior to fresh, OKAY? so should be use it or not? Conclusion not stated. so eliminate

Anyways you don't have to do all that nonsense. Just realize not Tastiest = far less tasty

Sur-Fact-ant LOL i am science major. thought i would say. it is also found in lungs so you can breath better :)

Sarah argument is dumb lol: Many , but not most do not survive - practice is wasteful

Sarah what about 99 that do survive or very least 51% that do survive.

The other error is it says MANY of the hormone found during stress found in tear, but not all. so you can do whole-part flaw also i couldn't find it in A.C

I think you guys made it over complicated. Unlike JY i don't use and, but use conditional statement still when denying conditional statement, it helps with clarity. How do you deny a conditional statement? X -> Y denying this X -> /Y

P: Justified in blaming/praising → KLE

C: NOT ( KLE -> /FP) = KLE → FP

P : Justified in blaming/praising → KLE

C: KLE → FP

Combine it

Justified in blaming/praising → KLE → FP

A.C : Justified in blaming /praising →FP.

Justine - Leaders expected to loose -> paid

Simon : who knows leader expected to loose or not , but going to trial would have costed more.

So the disagreement is justine : They expected to loose, Simon: who knows!

Now A.C are just difficult to see. E is the winner.

A is wrong because it tells us about Justine thinks they would have lost. Justine never said that. Justine said LEADERS expected to loose.

I think difficult question comes down to one word in LSAT, seems to me they think because in real legal word one word could have such detrimental effect.

False dichotomy, Why cannot they both be right? Why either parent or psych and if psy then not parent.

#help (Added by Admin)

This question boils down to this

National → Local

If national then required by local.

Premise: National code violation

Conclusion: Local code violation

Defendant attempted Necessary -> Sufficient error.

You can draw it out

Draw a big circle : local, and smaller circle : National.

if you slash small circle out then bigger circle (local) still exists

if you slash big circle out then both smaller and bigger cease to exist. so you can tell Bigger circle is necessary and smaller is sufficient.

This is like strengthening question : Causal or gap. This is gap type.

Anything Over 2 days would be a good answer.

Here is the core

If you rent it you are buying it (premise cannot challenge )

Rent 2 days interval

rent exceed expectation and sale meets expectation

So, sale will exceed expectation.

GAP: renters cannot finish in 2 days, since they get preoccupied now they will so will end up buying it.

@ said:

@ said:

@ said:

I wrote the Friday the 29th date and had two RCs trying to determine which one was scored...Overall, I thought the RCs were easier than I had found the PT's but I could be totally off. Normally I have trouble getting through all 4 passages but on both sets I got through without too much difficulty, LR seemed pretty standard, games were on the more difficult side of PTs I'd found but again none that seemed impossible -- what did other ppl think?

I had two RC sections as well, one with the brainstorming comparative passage and one with the medical ethics comparative passage. I thought the brainstorming one was harder so I hope it's the unscored section

I think that I saw people on a Reddit thread saying that they believed the brainstorming one with the melodrama play passage was the unscored, and the medical ethics one was scored. I agree I thought the brainstorming set was the harder of the two so fingers crossed.

What is the relevant facts leading to the conclusion of melodrama being not real? Can you please share. I am hoping that as well.

I had same stuff medical ethic then brainstorm. RC sec 1 medical ethic, psychiatrist then RC sec 3, intangible law passage and brainstorm. That melodrama was dam. I had no clue