Not one clue what this explanation is saying. Not one.

#help

What a terrible explanation, what in the hell are we supposed to find here. The MSS statement? I know. But which one? the last one? There are assumptions in fact sets? When and in what section was that talked about? He keeps doing this, he is so good at the logic but I am not so he needs to explain the method we spend weeks learning. Like this: This is a MSS, first step is this, second step is this as so on and by the way there are also assumptions in fact sets etc. A blueprint that we can follow like clockwork. But no, he just skips over that fact.

This is a fact set but we only focused on the last part. Why? Explain that? I wish I knew all he knows so I could explain this shit in detail.

Then he goes off into tangents and commentary that has noting to do with anything, and he calls himself out, it looses students.

So damn frustrating.

#help

#help

#help

#help

#help

#help

#help

Great, we study NA only to find out that "never mind, this also a SA" HTF are we suppose to know this. Then JY says, "hopefully, you narrowed it down to A and D". Well, no, I did not.

This is so infuriating. The good ol' curve breakers. The question stem clearly says necessary.

What a nightmare,this passage is a fucken nightmare.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

#help

How in the hell is A right? The stimulus talks about the copy of a reproduction being bad but it is still the act of painting. A goes from a speech having half truths and then the recording's sound is not good. The recording is NOT the same type of thing, not the same medium. From painting to a reproduction of a painting. Then speech to recording but where the fuck does that make it the same medium for the sound play any role. These fucken curve braker questions are given and then explained away after the fact, no matter the answer choice.

I am beyond pissed, as you can read.

#help

Very few ppl will catch the subtle "cost" to "produce" shift in subject. D is that type of answer choice that makes you say "hey, I think I missed something". The answer choice just jumps at you and makes you feel like an idiot for not reading carefully.

Of course I got it wrong. FML.

How does he FKN know what the FKN assumptions are........???????????????????????????????????????????????????

#HELP

How the in the hell do I answer WKN questions, can someone tell me one thing all of these questions share so I can follow the blueprint. Is it find the assumption and then weaken the assumption ? But the assumption is already the Achilles heal? Or is the assumption the weakness. What a nightmare.

Do I weaken the relationship between premises and conclusion? and if so how the hell do I do that? This question was as fkn nightmare, all of the weaken questions are not clear because I don't know what the task is.

#help

#adminhelp

Zero people will ever draw this explanation out in the real test. None. Why can'y J.Y do actual methodology that we can rely on when doing the actual test? This is crazy and very upsetting. Why doesn't he say "look this questions is challenging BUT this is how you get through it" and then show us the way. Instead he says, "hey, you guys will probably get this question wrong, so just skip it" he literally says this, speaking of drawing inferences and conclusions, it sounds like he is saying "you guys aren't smart enough, so just skip it".

It sounds very elitist and very paternalistic. He primes students in this (and many other questions) by saying "this question is really hard". He is right, the question is challenging BUT ONLY if students have no clue what they are doing. But if the student has studied his lessons and is on top of things, this question is not not. There is a way to figure the question out. Instead to priming students and saying that this question is hard, he needs to say "look guys, this question is challenging BUT this is how you beat the question, just follow the things I've shown you" and then he can go about taking the question down step by step.

This is a great example of how more challenging questions are formulated. The premises don't support the conclusion, we know that, BUT the correct answer does not address this part wholly, instead the correct answer attacks the relationship between the premises and JY does not go explain this. I struggled with this question because I tried to anticipate the answer in the form of the conclusion is not supported by the premises so spot the descriptive flaw but I could't do it. I got it right in the end because the only weakness that I saw in the answer choices was the flawed relationship between the two premises.

I noticed that the same issue arises in harder strengthen and weaken questions, the LSAT knows we are zoomed in on the assumptions so they change it up and weaken or strengthen the relationship between premises. This is what I have noticed, I may be wrong but since JY doesnt mention any of this, I am just left wondering.

#help

#help

#help

J.Y at no point in the Flaw Lesson does he say: If there are conditional indicators in the flaw question go ahead draw them out. The conclusion will be Flawed 100% because it is a flaw question, diagram the flawed conclusion and set it to the side. The go back to the argument and make the correct inference conclusion as per the appropriate valid argument form, then compare the correct conclusion to the flawed conclusion in the stimulus. The flaw in the argument can be seen when the two conclusion are compared.

At what point did J.Y show us this say that in the Flaw Lesson did he say that?????

#help

The explanation for why C is not correct is a bad one. He says that C is wrong but does not explain his own two step test that the correct answer needs to be both descriptively accurate and it needs to define the flaw. This is another nightmare fkn question.

#help

The explanation on how Flaw questions that ask you to find the assumption ---which turns out to be a weakener is good one but it doesn't go into detail to fully explain it.

#help

Just draw out the argument. He does not go sentence by sentence to show us what is going on in the argument. Also, where is the "without" part of the argument. For the 10th time, J.Y is clearly, CLEARLY very good at this but explain the question fully; follow the lesson you showed us.

#help

No clue how to answer this question. It's like the entire previous lessons learning valid argument forms didn't happen. If I can't get this easy one,then its a fucken wrap for me.

#help

#help

#help

I did really, really, really good on the SA drill exercises but I was weary because I knew the questions were NOT going to anything like the drills. In real LSAT questions, we have to parse out the fkn sentences, things he didn't even cover, examples where he says he knows what to do because of his intuition. Great, awesome, how the hell does that help us? I am beyond upset, furious, because J.Y doesn't show us the same exact thing every time. I have not gotten one fkn question right (and excuse my language) but I am so frustrated.

He uses conditional language in questions that don't even have group 1, 2, 3, or 4 words ???

How can I parse the damn language, when he doesn't show us.

#HELP

I don't understand how JY came down to A. How?

#HELP

Here I am one week later doing question problem sets and I still cannot understand what #17 is asking. One cannot even attempt the question when one does not know what it says. Moving on to the question is just a guess. I get lost after the pre-modern part.

#help

Literally no idea what J.Y means, why cant he explain exactly what he said but in non-expert friendly way. He even said it REPEATEDLY through the explanation; that the higher level of analysis isn't needed. Then why do it? Or do it after you explain what the actual question wants us to find. Show us exactly what part of the agument it is and why and what the other parts of the argument are and why those are wrong.

I think MBT and Argument Part questions are the foundation to the entire LG section because from there we can build and move on to Flaw, Flaw in the Reasoning, WK, STRG, NA, SA etc. because we can dissect the different parts of the argument.

#help

#help

#help

Why, oh why on gods green earth is J.Y using the LSAT and law school example on the last part of the conditional??? They are not the same. Sure, the idea in the end is the same but the words used by the last sentence to get to CS down→OP down are not. He does the damn contrapositive in his head, this is the type of shit that is so infuriating. Why doesn't he do it using the "only if" group two indicator THEN the contrapositive so we can follow along. He lost me and I am sure as hell he lost many, many other students.

He has made the point that he is really, really good at this but I am not there yet. SMFH.

#help

#help

#help

The logic lessons are without a doubt key to getting these questions right BUT J.Y needs to do another video(s) where he goes in depth with the different ways to parse out the language. Because while I may know the logic, the LSAT writers use all this convoluted language and it is very frustrating. What is even more frustrating though, is when JY doesn't explain how exactly to attack these type of convoluted wordy questions. Of course there are many, many different ways the LSAT writers will try to make our lives difficult but there are over arching patterns and J.Y needs to create a video of the most common and least common ways the MBT are formulated. Just like he did with the embedded video but there are also other questions that are very hard, it isn't until he tells us "look, this is what they did to trip you up" but sometimes he doesn't explain and we have to deduce what he is doing. I know this is part of the way we learn but not always but it is the only way we learn. I am left with many questions that I can't ask because the explanation isn't done in depth.

#help

#help

#help

Really good explanation on this one, I got the question right even though I missed the element that has to be carried over that leads to the ←s→ relationship in the correct answer. Mainly because all of the other answers are bad. My question is, why isn't there a double conjunctive arrow coming out of "all parrots"? The statement reads "All parrots can learn to speak words AND phrases ???

#HELP

Again, #22 same thing keeps happening, A is wrong but JY doesn't explain explain (A) correctly he just expects us to know what's going on. (A) says: No self-motivated salesperson who are not highly successful are well organized. He says that there is an intersection b/w no self-motivated sales person & who are not highly successful. How does he know????????? Tell me, I want to know as well. I guarantee you that zero people were like "Wait a minute, there is an intersection b/w /HS &SM thus leading to /HS & SM→/WO

How?

#help

#help

#help

Why doesn't JY just follow his own lessons. It is so damn frustrating. #12 He starts good by diagramming "It is wrong for the government to restrict liberty" RL→W (not to mention that he doesn't explain how RL leads to W, there are no indicators). After diagramming RL→W he doesn't diagram the rest of the statement. He goes into explaining the rest of the statement with a diagram. That shit isn't gonna help me on future MBT questions. Why show us logic when he isn't going to use it in the explanations? How exactly are we supposed to get good at this if we don't get the explanations the way they were taught in the lesson????? Incredibly infuriating and frustrating.

#HELP

HTF are we suppose to draw out #12. HOW????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

#help

#help

#help