Indeed, thank you for taking the time to sit down and write this post. It's helpful to read and inspiring as I begin my own LSAT journey. I often struggle to find time to study for the LSAT but after reading your post, I'm ready to carve out time in my schedule, commit to those hours and get it done.

Thank you!

Helpful Tip:

What is the population you are looking at?

Before I move on to answer choices, I quickly ask myself to identify the population. In this case, the population consists of the individuals in the study, who are split into two groups. While I may be tempted to extrapolate this information to all people with heart disease, I can remind myself that this is not the population being discussed. When I keep the population in mind, it helps me quickly eliminate answer choices (A & B in this scenario) and avoid trap answers that extrapolate beyond the question itself into the realm of "general, common sense knowledge".

Lesson: You can work backwards to figure out what you were looking for. If the conclusion is that a reporter can scoop all of the other reporters, and you know that you are looking for a flaw, think backwards: What situation would make it such that a reporter could not scoop all of the other reporters?

Having a scoop requires that one person has more knowledge than the others. A non-scoop requires that this is not the case i.e. that everyone has the same degree of knowledge (either none, some, or a lot but the same degree nonetheless). This is what answer choice E pinpoints.

#help

I've noticed that several answer choices for Method of Reasoning Q introduce the idea of questioning the motives of your opponent. So far, I haven't seen a passage where this applies. Have any of the LSAT passages you've seen argue by means of questioning the motives of your opponent?

@, I did the exact same thing and jumped in on a review session when I was halfway through the Science section. I think you should absolutely go ahead and join. I was able to follow the conversation, and found it really helpful to have an interactive session with JY. I also agree with @ about reviewing the A/B comparative passage approach that JY takes.

#help

Why is D an incorrect answer choice?

I felt like the author failed to show that "most disciplines that are not scientifically valuable have origins that are in some way suspect"

If chemistry's current theories and practices did not differ from alchemists (answer choice B), would it be fair to conclude that the discipline lacks scientific value? Is this not bringing in our own biases from the world about alchemy and magic? I read B and initially thought to myself - so what? So what if they differ? The author has failed to establish that "alchemy and magic" are suspect in a way that somehow undermines the scientific value of the discipline.

Would really appreciate your thoughts!

As I examine my wrong answer choices, I always try to summarize the lesson I learned from making this mistake.

Lesson: Always respond to the main point of the argument.

The trap answer choices elicit a response similar to "oh sure, that could be true". Yes, it could be in the real world, but we are not in the real world. We are in the confines of the LSAT world and right now, your world is confined to the scope of this stimulus and this question. What is the argument saying to you, and are you responding directly to that?

Argument : This argument centres on the degree of lighting, to establish whether or not Klein could recognize the perpetrator. In turn, the right answer choice must address the lighting, as opposed to addressing other random factors.

e.g. of random factor that I picked

Wrong answer choice B: "the perpetrator may closely resemble someone who was not involved in the robbery" _.There exists out there in the world, many people who resemble each other. Were they near the crime scene? Did Klein misidentify that person as the perpetrator? (too many questions). Just stating that this person exists, does not harm the argument.

E) "During the robbery the moon's light may have been interfered with by conditions such as cloud cover". The moon being out does not exclude other factors that could affect lighting e.g. cloud cover.

Lesson Application: Most importantly, this answer choice addresses the central piece of the argument: lighting.

@ said:

@, I'm also wondering if I should skip ahead in the curriculum to join in on these sessions. I'm currently at MBT and MBF Qs (pretty early on in the core curriculum). Is it worth me joining these sessions with no prior study? Should I skip ahead?

@ If anyone is in the same situation as me, I would highly recommend you go ahead and join a session. I skipped ahead in the syllabus, started "Intro to Reading Comprehension" this morning and got through as much as I could. I was feeling nervous about joining and not having enough foundational knowledge to follow the conversation, but am so glad I pushed ahead. JY did a great job of going through all the questions and passages in a really thorough, comprehensive way, so I didn't find myself lost (well, not for very long at least).

@, I'm also wondering if I should skip ahead in the curriculum to join in on these sessions. I'm currently at MBT and MBF Qs (pretty early on in the core curriculum). Is it worth me joining these sessions with no prior study? Should I skip ahead?