Can you post the LR/LG/RC they recommend studying? thanks

The most second picked AC is C and homie just breezes past it.

Great. Fantastic explanation

Honestly man I’m almost done with my lsat studies and I gotta say I’m pretty frustrated with JY’s explanations most of the time. Feel like I should have gone with lsat demon or something

His explanation for A makes zero sense. He literally makes a little drawing and instead of going into detail of why AC A is wrong he merely says: “great”.

This is the sort of insight I’ve spent hundreds of dollars on?? I mean really. Come on now dude.

And you know the question is BS because JY spends 16 minutes of trying to show how it makes sense lol

….there is zero connection between Indian residents eating Indian curry. Is this for real the answer? This goes against everything I’ve been learning about for the last 7 months.

Lol I get why I got this is wrong but what sort of lazy ass explanation is JY giving for this? He doesn’t explain at all why A and B are wrong.

He literally says “what” for AC B and scribbles it out lol. Come on my guy. That’s not helping anyone

#help

JY's dismissiveness of AC E for #26 doesn't track for me. Why is he referring to Darwinism instead of Social Darwinism?

lol the end of the first paragraph actually provides direct support for AC E, whereas AC A requires you to make much more looser inferences.

Poor question, not great explanation IMHO

Also down to join another study group

sometimes JY's explanations are way too succinct. He literally states here, for an explanation, that the answer is wrong because of "logic". Oh wow thanks dude, that's the insight I'm paying 70$ a month for lol.

nvm logical indicators are different. ANNOYING

How does he make the top argument moral right a sufficient condition but the bottom argument the moral standing becomes a necessary condition when the lay out of the text is identical. Doesn't even get addressed.

#help

If we have to infer that the gov is course correcting the price of appliances for AC C why can we not assume it’s the gov not responsible for creating the necessary support system in AC C?

We could literally make that inference just as easily.

explanation doesn’t create any distinction

#help

This also requires us to make the assumption that OW don't work out. How is that any more of a leap than any of the incorrect answer choices????

We could spend 20 minutes elucidating on any of these AC and the explanation could be just as seemingly tied into aforementioned premises.

Doesn't AC strengthen the concept that PW are less likely to be injured than OW, but it speaks towards nothing regarding office chairs or even workers?

#help

this is a totally trash question. Theoretically E requires us to make an equally out there assumption as B.

Edited, didn’t read the note

Answer choice C is literally laid out in the first sentence. Explanation didn’t help clarify this at all

How is it taking three days not indicative of CA damaged mail????

#help

This is horrific

How is B not also true? If none of the planning committee lives in the suburbs, then none of the potential planning committee members who have a financial interest don’t live in the suburbs?

Unless it’s inferring that those who could have a financial interest on the planning committees decisions aren’t on the planning committee but his explanation/lawgic doesn’t at all reference this.

#help

I doubt guy is still running this. We have a discord up and running if anyone is interested. PM me and I’ll shoot you the link

Sent invites to everyone who’s commented! Please come and introduce yourself

Invites sent out to everyone who requested one! Please, come comment, introduce yourself, and let us know your availability so we can coordinate a weekly study period. Thanks

Sent out invites! Please come in and leave a comment and let the group know your availability. It’s looking like Thursdays and Sundays are currently days which work best for everyone