I made a comment about this on the question page, but I'm re-posting this here hoping more people will see it. Wanting people to weigh in, do you treat except as a bi-conditional, or do you treat it the same as "unless, until, without"?
I diagrammed things a little differently than JY and therefore got rid of B for a different reason. I know that in the "except" lesson, JY treats it as a bi-conditional which means perhaps would be the only word making B the wrong answer. But I've also read that except only works as a bi-conditional if it's preceded by a sufficient indicator like all, every, etc.. Ellen Cassidy and others treat "except" the same way as "unless." With that in mind, this is how I did it:
Not a case where freedom leads to harm ---> wrong to restrict individual liberty
Not wrong to restrict liberty ---> case where freedom leads to harm
AC B, in that case is affirming the necessary and trying to conclude the sufficient condition. I feel like this bleeds over into application of the law in general, which I have a question about. Let's take a different example, say there's a law that says the following:
It is illegal to run a red light, except in an emergency.
/emergency --> illegal to run a red light
legal to run a right light --> emergency
So, to me all that it's saying is that if it's not an emergency, under no circumstance are you permitted to run a right light. It doesn't say that if there is an emergency, you can run a red light. In my mind, it's because the law is set up to restrict, not permit. You couldn't possibly enumerate everything citizens are allowed to do, it's far more efficient to simply outline what isn't permitted. If, for example, you do run a right light in an emergency, it's still probably okay though because the statute simply doesn't apply to you in your situation. It's only for people who are not in emergencies. It also prevents other laws from undercutting it... for example, if you had another law that said in an emergency you cannot impede the flow of traffic. But, what if you did that while running a red light? Having the conditional as it is leaves the space for the one law to not undercut the other.
Now, if I were to change the law to state:
It is always illegal to run a red light, except in an emergency.
Does that functionally change the meaning of the sentence? According to what I said earlier, it should turn it into a bi-conditional.
I diagrammed things a little differently than JY and therefore got rid of B for a different reason. I know that in the "except" lesson, JY treats it as a bi-conditional which means perhaps would be the only word making B the wrong answer. But I've also read that except only works as a bi-conditional if it's preceded by a sufficient indicator like all, every, etc.. Ellen Cassidy and others treat "except" the same way as "unless." With that in mind, this is how I did it:
Not a case where freedom leads to harm ---> wrong to restrict individual liberty
Not wrong to restrict liberty ---> case where freedom leads to harm
AC B, in that case is affirming the necessary and trying to conclude the sufficient condition. I feel like this bleeds over into application of the law in general, which I have a question about. Let's take a different example, say there's a law that says the following:
It is illegal to run a red light, except in an emergency.
/emergency --> illegal to run a red light
legal to run a right light --> emergency
So, to me all that it's saying is that if it's not an emergency, under no circumstance are you permitted to run a right light. It doesn't say that if there is an emergency, you can run a red light. In my mind, it's because the law is set up to restrict, not permit. You couldn't possibly enumerate everything citizens are allowed to do, it's far more efficient to simply outline what isn't permitted. If, for example, you do run a right light in an emergency, it's still probably okay though because the statute simply doesn't apply to you in your situation. It's only for people who are not in emergencies. It also prevents other laws from undercutting it... for example, if you had another law that said in an emergency you cannot impede the flow of traffic. But, what if you did that while running a red light? Having the conditional as it is leaves the space for the one law to not undercut the other.
Now, if I were to change the law to state:
It is always illegal to run a red light, except in an emergency.
Does that functionally change the meaning of the sentence? According to what I said earlier, it should turn it into a bi-conditional.
Anyway, #help I guess lol.
You can almost treat this question like a MSS. What most likely is true given stimulus?
If one lawyer was trying to screw them up, and the other was trying to help them, then the group in question was resistant to both.
I really overthought this one to my detriment!
I just finished the mock Criminal Law exam! I thought it would be fun to get a discussion going for those who have gone through the process and wrote the exam. What did you think about the overall experience? What questions do you still have? How did you go about studying? Throughout the whole experience, I was dying for someone to talk about this stuff with! I still have a bunch of questions about general vs. specific intent crimes.
Another explanation for why E is wrong, it's pretty similar to JY's but I thought I'd put it out there in case it helps! Wrote this up during my BR.
So, I think this is wrong because it’s descriptively inaccurate. This is basically saying that the author thinks that the number and variety of great artworks affects the way that you take in and are fulfilled by contemporary art. But that’s not what the author is saying. The contemporary artists believe that contemporary art offers something new, something that would allow you to become more fulfilled than you would otherwise be, and the author is countering that by saying that there’s so much art that can meet any taste imaginable that contemporary art isn’t adding anything new. It’s not like all the other art is affecting how you see contemporary art.
I also think it's helpful when doing this question timed to not focus on why answer choices are wrong, but on why they're right. If true, D very clearly weakens. If you don't have access to the other art it doesn't matter whether or not it exists.
Hi 7Sage community!
EDIT At the moment I'm booked, I'll update this in the future as I get more time, etc. Thanks everyone!
I'm posting this to see if there is anyone out there who would be interested in free tutoring. I am currently scoring in the low 170s and I'm looking to break into the mid-upper 170s by March. I'm hoping that the act of helping others with this test will help me reach that goal! I'd also love to "pay forward" the knowledge and work I've put into studying for this test for the past year and a half. Please read before messaging me, I know it's long.
I do not profess to be an expert at all... hence why it's free. (I also have pretty strong feelings about the cost barriers for this test, so I can't imagine charging much in the future either, once I get some experience and higher scores under my belt.) In exchange for this, I'm looking for people who are reliable. I am looking for someone who will be on time and responsive. Also I'll ask for your patience... I have teaching experience in other areas, but not with this test. It will be a learning experience for both of us!
Unfortunately, because I'm still in the middle of my own studying, I'm preciously treasuring my clean tests. This makes me somewhat limited in the tests that I'm willing to help people from. At this point I'm currently familiar with PTs 1-51, and a smattering of others in the 60s and 70s. I'm starting a pretty aggressive PT schedule, so that range will widen as the weeks go on. If you'd like to be on the same PT schedule as me, that would be fantastic and something we can talk more about.
My strengths are RC and LR... LG isn't bad, but it's probably my weakest section so my help there could be spottier.
My schedule is absolutely insane so flexibility will be required here. I have a full time job with strange hours... I work Weekdays and evenings on the Weekend. Mondays are my only day off usually, sometimes Tuesdays. I'm located on the east coast, so people on EST are preferred, but not required.
I am an orchestral musician and have a very extensive performance background... lots of performing, lots of auditions. If you are someone who is struggling at all with the performance aspects of this test, I can help you.
Feel free to message me if you're interested! This will be a first come first serve situation, I can't imagine being able to help more than 1 or 2 people if we do regular weekly sessions.
Thanks!
Nora
Hey 7sagers!
I’m almost at the end of the Core Curriculum, and I'm planning on moving into the final PT phase of my studying around mid-march. I figure that this would be a really great time to start doing group PT Blind Review discussions. This would be in the form of zoom sessions dedicated to doing some in-depth question analysis on harder questions, and talking through timing strategy. All of course are welcome, however, my goal here is to hone skills, this won’t be a group for discussing fundamentals. I’m hoping these zoom meetings will be as needed/ semi regular. I can’t commit to x times per week, as I’m anticipating some weeks when I hone in on strategy as needed and forgo scheduled Practice Tests. I’m planning on starting with PT36 and working my way up from there.
Just some background information for people to know where I’m at:
I’m planning on taking the June or August exam, possibly both. I just registered for the June test today, actually (it was weirdly nerve wracking.) My last PT was back in September when I was just starting out with the CC. I got a 161, BR 173. I am nervous/excited to see where I'll be scoring a few weeks from now when I start PTs!
Let me know if this is something that sounds interesting/helpful to you, and we’ll go from there. I think it would also be great to have a group to lean on for general questions... like, I already have questions about submitting the writing sample for the Flex.
@ sorry I never replied to your post! In case you're still curious, something about the concept of the passage only having 3 or 4 big ideas, and everything else being detail really stuck with me. I really liked their framework approach as well, although currently my approach which has gotten me into the -0 to -2 scoring range has thrown all methods out the window haha. I think @ hit the nail on the head. For me, it's literally about comprehension and pretty much nothing else. I read at what I think is a glacial pace and it's actually not that slow. I think we do way more panic reading than we realize, so I really slow down and I almost always end up with extra time at the end of the section. I'll even go back and re-read a paragraph 3 or 4 times if it's really confusing me and I don't understand it. I realized that if you truly understand what the author is saying, the questions become pretty easy and straightforward.
Yeah it has not always been my experience that LSAT passages are arranged easiest to hardest. Just today I took a section that had the hardest passages at the beginning, and even if it's true generally, I wouldn't count on that. Just like you shouldn't count on the first questions of an LR section to be the easiest.
It's hard to give advice without knowing your goals and timeline, but if you're shooting for -0 to -2 on RC my advice would be to take the timing element out of it. My general feeling is that one shouldn't rush into taking 35 minute sections too quickly. If you're not scoring in your goal range untimed (which is basically what BR is), it might be worth it to take some time and do untimed RC passages until you feel more confident.
Try not to assign value to your diagnostic, it's simply a post to mark where you're starting. Your diagnostic doesn't say anything about your potential, just where you are at the beginning of your journey. Good luck!
How would you determine which passages are the hardest in enough time to switch gears? I would be concerned that it would take too much time.
I've personally found a lot of success doing the passages with the most questions first. If the passages are easier you should be able to move through them faster and have plenty of time at the end to tackle the harder passages if they have the fewest questions.
What are your BR scores in RC like?
Hey 7sage hive mind! I just finished the Strengthening Section of the CC and I struggled more than I have with any of the other question types thus far. For a lot of people it seems like after going through weakening, strengthening feels easy. I'm having the opposite issue... my entire weakening section went really well, but once I got into middle difficulty level, to harder questions on strengthening I feel like my accuracy plummeted. I'm hesitant to move on in the CC until I really understand this question type. Does any one have any thoughts as to why someone could excel with weakening but struggle with strengthening? I even tried negating answer choices to try and weaken the argument but I feel like it doesn't work for every question.
Thanks in advance!
Answer choice C contains a false dichotomy. Both A and the original argument have a true dichotomy, which is then rendered moot by the response. If it doesn't rain, we can just water the garden with a hose. Market share won't become an issue if consumers demand sound ecological practices.
So, I was just listening to the Powerscore Podcast (the first episode on causality), and Dave said the following: If you want to ask a series of confusing questions about concept differentiation, ask someone to describe the difference between some are not, and not all.
Well Dave, I am confused. They seem like the same to me! The only thing I can think of is this:
Some are not implies a positive amount, there has to be at least 1 of a group that is not like any of the other members.
But not all can mean zero: for example if you say that not all of these apples are green, it could be the case that none of them are green.
The problem that I run into with this, is when I think about equivalent statements:
Not all of the apples are green
Some of the apples are not green.
These are logically equivalent.
Does anyone else have some insight? Maybe he just said it offhand and there really is no difference.
I have an approach to weaken/strengthen and also MSS which helped me on this question a LOT. I think that with the question types mentioned above, it is far better to compare the answer choices to each other, instead of to the stimulus. I give each answer choice a shot, unless it clearly does nothing, trying to surmise how it could weaken/strengthen or be most likely to be true in the case of MSS. Then if I have more than one left standing, I tear them down and see which one holds up the best. This is more conscious during BR, but timed it's simply me thinking which one does a better job.
When I was doing this question timed, I had it down to C and D... I've seen test writers pull similar stuff with twins in the past, so it actually made me like D, but C was also calling to me because it seemed to be directly contradicting the stimulus. But the stimulus says that watching yourself exercise can motivate you to exercise more, so C is a case of a grouped extreme, to use a Loophole expression. We don't care about those who were already highly motivated, it could have been one person. That left D, where the writers are clearly trying to get you to make a connection that there is something similar about watching yourself, and watching someone who looks identical to you. It doesn't have to weaken by a lot, but out of the options given, it is the best weakener, and stands up better to scrutiny than C.
I agree with @. Since the stimulus mentions that associating green with go is an ingrained association, we can assume that red for a start button would be counter-intuitive.
Also, with the LSAT some outside information can be brought in. The writers to expect you to know some basic universal truths, and I personally think associating green with go and red with stop falls under that category.
D is the correct answer, because it offers an alternative explanation for the increase in the percentage of deaths. The stimulus says that a smaller percentage of cows died from this disease 5 years ago than now. They therefore conclude that the virus is more deadly, which relies on the assumption that more cows have died. But if the deaths are piece of the pie (the total number of infected cows), the entire pie needs be the same from 5 years ago to now in order to draw the conclusion that they draw. This is a numbers don't equal percentages flaw. What if it were the case that the pie from 5 years ago included every single case that actually existed and the pie now only consists of the really, really serious cases that are far more likely to result in death? That's what answer choice D is saying.
Hey everyone!
I had some thoughts tonight on the exam, and I thought it might be useful to put them out there into the LSAT community at large. Hopefully there's someone who finds this helpful :)
So, something that's been stewing in the back of my mind for the past week or so, is this idea of the bell curve. How can we use that to our advantage when we approach the test? Obviously, we all know that there are easier questions and harder questions... and we all reach a point where we feel like we should be getting the easy questions correct, after all, they're the easiest questions we see, and we want to have some idea that our studying is paying off, right? But, up until recently I had a mental block with these questions. So concerned I was about my pride (haha), not wanting to miss an "easy" question, that I was sinking way too much time into them, trying to make sure I got them right.
But, here's what I realized: The writers want to maintain their curve, and we all know this... but for me personally, I wasn't putting enough time into thinking about what this really meant. The LSAT is so good at manipulating us into choosing the wrong answer, we forget that on certain questions, they're manipulating us into choosing the right answer. At times, the LSAT seems like this force of nature... it's a test with amazing psychometrics. It knows us better than we know ourselves. But, instead of always seeing it as a bad thing, we can reframe it in a positive way, and it could help us to move faster during the questions that we know we probably got right but... we just wanted to "be extra sure" about. I think there are two major (and probably obvious reasons) for adopting this mentality.
First, it saves time. If we can get these questions lightning fast, it will save us so much precious time that we need for the 8 or so really, really tough questions. This is also a really important fail-safe on this test. Something that I have come to realize, (because I've had some very wise people tell me) is that mistakes will be made... I will misread, it's just going to happen. The more time you have to play with, the better chance you have of correcting these errors. Second, it saves brain power... so much brain power for when you're exhausted and you're worried about time and everything else that comes with this exam.
So, let the LSAT steer you where it wants you to go, that way you'll be ready to take over the reigns when it's time to shine!
p.s., check out the LSAT Lab video where they talk about moving through the first 10 questions on instinct. I think it definitely shaped helped my view on this.
A lot of the T-14 schools have LRAPs. I haven't done a lot of deep digging yet except at University of Michigan, which has a pretty comprehensive outline on their website. You don't have to spend the rest of your life paying off debt if you go to a top school.
Hey guys! I'm new here and I wanted to introduce myself. I'm also potentially thinking about joining a study group and/or looking for a study buddy... not sure yet though. I'm thinking it might be nice to have someone to share resources with, and discuss questions with. How does that work on here? I'm pretty hesitant to give out my personal info... but it looks like we can send private messages on here?
I'm thinking I will end up taking the June 2021 LSAT exam. I was initially shooting for November, but I only started studying at the end of June (2020), and I would love to unlock as much of my potential as possible.
My background is classical music, but going to law school is starting to become the dream I never knew I had. I'm particularly interested in social justice work, anyone else?
Anyway, just wanted to say hi and if nothing else I look forward to chatting with you all in the comments!
Turning 32 this year!! Started studying for the test right before my 30th birthday.
Despite the fact that timed this question isn't difficult, when reviewing it and trying to categorize it, I came to a roadblock. JY's explanation helped me to settle on this as my explanation for the question:
Elena:
the best form of government ---> fosters belief
_
democracy (fosters belief) ---> best form of government
Elena is assuming that democracy is the only government that fosters belief of having a say. The reason that she's assuming this, is because she's conflating belief with fact. Since democracy is the government where all citizens have an equal say, she assumes that it must also be the only government that fosters the belief of having one.
Marsha calls out her assumption by essentially saying you can't confirm the necessary and conclude the sufficient. The premise that she gives doesn't necessarily lead to democracy, belief is only a requirement, and there are lots of governments that foster a belief that aren't democracies.. believing that you have a say doesn't necessarily mean that you have one.
If you haven't checked out the LSAT Lab RC videos, I highly recommend checking them out. They're available for free on Youtube and they totally changed my RC game.
On top of that, I totally agree with @, especially with 5: Worry less about speed and more on comprehension. I improved my score a ton simply by slowing down and making sure that I understood what I was reading.
Would someone be able to help me out with this one? I didn't trust the correct AC from the beginning because I thought it was too much of a sufficient assumption. I know something can be both sufficient and necessary but this question just really got me.
Thanks in advance!
Anyone else doing Logic Games in their sleep??
Seriously though, it made me think about how important a good night's rest is for this process. We may think that constantly studying is the answer, but sleep is where we process what we've learned. A set number of hours isn't possible for all of us... I know there are many on here with full time jobs, young children etc. But just a friendly reminder that, if you're able, get a good night's rest!! :) The choice between an extra hour of study and an extra hour of sleep is starting to feel easier for me to make. Last night while I was dreaming, I was actually explaining to a friend something I had learned about in the Loophole earlier that day haha.
Hello 7sage hive mind!!
I have a few questions re: Character and Fitness section.
Every school asks if you have ever been disciplined for academic or non-academic reasons. Do university parking citations count as being disciplined by the school? Does anyone care? This was 7+ years ago.
Along a similar vein... If schools want to know about speeding tickets, should I disclose written warnings? Also, should I disclose when I was pulled over but not issued anything?
I'm clearly down the rabbit hole here lol.
Thanks in advance for your advice
So, when I Blind Review right now, I BR every single question, even the ones that I don’t flag. I take note of the answers that I change that I didn’t flag, but I just started timed tests and to me it doesn’t make any sense not to do an in-depth analysis of the entire test. I mean, I guess I could go through the step of just flagging every question, but it kind of feels silly to do that just so I can give myself permission to go over the entire test. Plus, I genuinely want to know which questions I had doubts about in the moment and if I flag everything then I probably won’t remember.
I get that the whole point is to test the accuracy of your confidence, but to me at this stage it feels more valuable to be analyzing every question. I figure at some point after I’ve gained enough experience, I’ll stop BRing questions I feel confident in, and that’s where the method of just reviewing flagged questions will kick in.
I’d love to hear other people’s thoughts on this. Am I putting myself at a disadvantage, or does it not matter at this stage? I think there’s stuff to be learned from every question, even from the super easy questions I probably got right. Why not take the opportunity to look at those as well?
This is a pretty straightforward "Link the Chains" argument.
/certain parts --> /swimming (take the contrapositive of the original statement)
Conclusion: /certain parts --> /survival advantage
In order to make the argument into a logical chain, you need to link /swimming --> /survival advantage, which is exactly what B is doing.
I'm so sorry you're going through this. I think there is a silver lining though, working through the worst case scenarios will help you get that much stronger regarding your ability to ace the test.
I've gone through phases where I was doing really great and then I had a score drop, I think it's part of the process. When there's a confidence shift it can feel devastating and like you'll never get it back. Just know that it won't last for ever and you'll be able to work your way out of it. My advice would be to stop taking PTs to preserve the ones you have and take it back a few steps. If I were in your position I would take a few days off to clear my head and to take care of myself. Then, do a thorough review of the PTs you took to find out where you went wrong, what's causing the score drop? Try to nail down a few concrete theories... are you doing a lot of panic reading, are you second guessing yourself and overanalyzing the answer choices? Depending on how much time I had until the exam, I would probably take a PT untimed, just to take the timing out of the equation and to boost my confidence. Then I would do an old PT timed before attempting a fresh one. Whenever I have a confidence crisis my first move is to remove the timing element, taking it back a step helps to reassure myself that I'm on the right track and that my fundamentals are solid.
The worst thing you can do is panic and just start taking a bunch of PTs. Make sure to take the time to take care of yourself, especially if you're sick. That can go a long way to get yourself back on track, and it's just good for life in general! Take a couple of deep breaths, you've got this and it'll be okay.
Something is really bothering me about this question, but it's not integral to getting it correct. If deceit is a quality of rottenness, that means that rottenness implies deceit, not the other way around. Which means that the first part of the argument isn't valid at all.
effective politicians must be deceitful, but that doesn't mean that they must be rotten. The conditional chain only sets off if deceit --> rottenness. For example, if sweetness is a quality of fruit, that means fruit --> sweet. If something is sweet, you can't say for sure that it's fruit.
Anyway... the question stem makes it kind of seem like it's valid which I think is why this is bugging me.
Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-19-section-4-question-13/
I know that 7Sage offers several different admissions packages, but I'm not sure what I need right now. I was hoping to be able to chat with an admissions consultant and get some insight into my situation, (I am a nontraditional applicant.) I'm not sure how this works.... do consultants on here have an hourly rate, or is there someone who would be willing to chat with me and answer a few questions? I've been reading on here how competitive law school admissions are getting, and I'd greatly appreciate some feedback on my soft qualifications.
Thanks!
I think this is the one time where taking a first pass at the questions puts you at a disadvantage. It's far better to try and make as much sense of A as you can, but to stay calm and immediately go read B before looking at the questions. I couldn't understand passage A and kind of freaked out... I had to go do the last passage, and come back at the end and race through this trying to make as much sense of it as I could. If you go in knowing that at least one author is aware of the passage of the other, it leaves open the possibility that they could clarify the other's position. That's exactly what happens here. Passage B helps to clear up questions that you may have after you read Passage A and seriously have no idea what they are talking about.
I have sort of a different reasoning for eliminating D, I think. If D) were to say: The desire to maintain social and academic success and self-esteem causes students to repress upsetting thoughts and feelings... that would be introducing reverse causality and it would be enough to explain the difference in the outcomes of the two groups. Those who have the desire to succeed repress, and that's why there's a correlation.
The problem with D), outside of the psychologist hypothesis angle, is that we are told that the desire to maintain social and academic success merely strengthens the tendency that's already there to repress upsetting thoughts and feelings. We don't really care about what is intensifying the relationship, we want the initial tendency to be explained, and we don't get that.
OMG. I misread displeasing for pleasing in AC B. soijfs;aodifja;oigha;eowighae. I was staring at this question for like 15 minutes being like... how is B the right answer?? -_-
It can absolutely present itself in the contrapositive because they’re logically equivalent statements. This happens all the time, particularly with PSA and SA questions.
To use your example:
Jonah ran a marathon today, so I can conclude that he will be tired afterward.
Correct answer: If one isn’t tired, then they didn’t run a marathon.
Thanks for the great advice @-1 ! I’m currently averaging -2 to -3 on games because I run out of time for the last few questions, it’s so aggravating. I keep hoping that I’ll get faster the more games I do, but I wonder if I’m losing time because I’m not instinctual enough on the setup. I often can’t decide fast enough when to go to the questions and when to figure stuff out before hand. (I know a lot of times it’s a little of both.) I feel like when I try and figure stuff out beforehand I run out of time, and when I try to go straight to the questions without figuring out too much, I’ve missed a major inference and then it takes me too long. The idea of ‘partial splitting’ is a great one!
I noticed today that there’s also something very mentally draining about games that the other 2 sections don’t seem to have… like it requires way more concentration that I can’t always muster. Plus there’s always the panic that sets in that tends to snowball when I can’t answer a question because I’m missing an inference.
I read slowly. (Or what feels slow to me.) It’s far better to read something once and understand it than to panic read something quickly 5 times and not fully comprehend. I also give myself the space to re-read something if it’s just not clicking. Sometimes I’ll re-read a paragraph several times if it’s complex. Every passage has 3 or 4 big ideas, make sure you understand what they are as well as the general flow and the structure. That understanding should come naturally if you read carefully and with a genuine curiosity. I like to think of every passage as a chance to learn something new about the world! Regardless of the subject, approaching RC with interest is a good way to stay focused and engaged.
I'm scoring similarly, and I think it's worth it. It's important to understand why those tough questions keep tripping you up if your ultimate goal is -0.
I would do a thorough PR review like anything else. Go through the section question by question and try to understand where you could have saved time that could have been devoted to the tougher questions. When you get to the questions you got wrong, evaluate. Why are the tougher questions rated the way they are...what makes them more challenging? Is it tricky wording, is it about a section in the passage that's particularly difficult to understand? Just recently I learned something by getting a tough question wrong, because I didn't understand the difference between refuting a claim, and arguing that someone's claim is incomplete.
Try different strategies... one thing I'm considering doing is skipping like I would for LR. Since I don't seem to have problems re-familiarizing myself with the passage when I come back to it, I'm going to only answer the questions that I'm 100% certain about, and then save the 3 or 4 questions that gave me trouble until the end.