Proproctor says in the rules that you cannot have paper or pens on your workspace, but I thought you were allowed 6 pieces of scratch paper... please help! Test is in 2 days...
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
the way I looked at this one:
the only thing I know about NOT getting the award is not having an exemplary record.
I can't justify Penn not getting the award unless I can confirm that he doesn't have an ER.
Saving a life isn't required for getting the award, but it guarantees it. Maybe you can also get the award if you save a kitten from a tree or even if you like win a scavenger hunt or something trivial. All I know is that if you save the life, you've got it; I don't know about any of the other potential ways to get the award.
A: Penn doesn't have ER. that's all I need. he can't get the award, no matter what. Franklin has ER and saved a life, he's got it!
was having a hard time finding the assumption in this one but realized that that meant I probably already assumed it. that's what led me to E!
There were no gaps in the language anywhere else - everything else seemed straightforward. We of course are programmed to think that we should do anything to reduce accidents, but that is still an assumption.
If I'm super confident in my answer and the answer matched my prediction, should I still be reading the rest of the options? I feel like I'm only half reading them when I'm super confident and don't get anything out of it anyway.
is it wrong that I eliminated E after reading "Kayapo" because I assumed that it wouldn't have summarized the whole passage as asked in the stem?
would it be wrong that I simply looked at the verbs used and quickly eliminated ABDE?
I didn't think that the author showed respect or admiration/appreciation. the author was definitely neutral toward experts, so I just jumped at C (and read it to confirm the whole thing sounded right) #help
are you guys watching the whole video if you confidently got the question right?
another LSAT program I've seen suggested to find the assumption made in the argument (the assumptions used to connect the premise to the conclusion) and test the answer choices against the assumption.
so for weaken questions you'd see if the answer choices destroy the assumption; for strengthen you see if the answer choices make that assumption more likely to be true.
tbh these weaken/strengthen vids on 7sage have been the first to have me really confused so maybe the method above might be more useful? or does this method even work? lmk
did this one pretty fast and didn't even read D.
skimmed the stim and grasped onto the conclusion saying "likely," so I knew the conclusion couldn't be definitive.
A B and E all had conclusions that said "will" or "will not" so I immediately got rid of them.
C had no temporal language, so it couldn't be parallel to D.
and that was it!
The way I did this one correctly and quickly:
First wrote a simple map of the stim.
All A are B.
Most B are C.
------
All A are C.
Then headed to the answer choices and realized all of them had the first sentence as the conclusion, so I skipped the first half and started with the premises.
As I read each answer choice, I was barely even reading the words - I was just replacing the premises with "All A are B. Most B are C" in my head. As soon as I noticed the premises weren't matching up with what I was saying, I moved on!
For example, I read A as:
All A (legislators) are B (politicians).
Most A (legislators) are C (run for office).
And stopped right there - this already doesn't match the argument form I matched for the stimulus.
Hope this makes sense lol
starting to feel realllllyy defeated with RC after getting like half of the questions wrong in this section :,) any advice
I'm getting these right but I still don't have a good mental framework. there's usually a guiding sentence or rule that I'll say in my head as I approach questions but I can't figure one out for NA - anyone have something simple they use? #help