@Jpetro92 I thought that meant it was the main st location too. Don't worry, you aren't too dumb for the LSAT. Some questions like this one are just hard for certain people, including myself (I'm sure there are questions that are you are better than others at) :)

Sufficient condition -> necessary condition. If a sufficient condition is met, it will guarantee the necessary condition. For example, a person who works out will be fit (in lawgic: works out -> fit).

However, being in the necessary condition does NOT prove that you are in the sufficient condition. For the example, you cannot say that a person being fit means they work out. There can be other reasons (sufficient conditions) why this person is fit (maybe they eat really healthy or have a crazy fast metabolism).

Another way I look at necessary conditions is when they're required for an outcome. For ex, as the lecture videos showed, a practicing lawyer MUST take the bar exam. There is no other way around this - it's necessary. In lawgic: practicing lawyer -> bar exam. However, if you switch these around (bar exam -> practicing lawyer), it doesn't work because there are other requirements for being a practicing lawyer so meeting the bar exam alone does not mean you automatically become a practicing lawyer.

I hope this helps!

@Hfa same lol

For anyone else who also chose A:

I chose A because I thought that it was a flawed argument. However, the Professor does not believe this. They are drawing their conclusion by using an argument that they think it is logical (not flawed).

Hope this helps!

@rorygilmore44 proud of you, stranger, and love your username! I got a 4/5 too and am proud of myself a win is a win

I got confused on the following chaining conditional example.

The sky looks blue only if it's daytime. Unless you hear birds singing, it's not daytime. If the sky looks blue, then you'll hear the birds singing.

Below is how is I mapped it out - is this the correct mapping?

-Blue sky -> daytime

-daytime -> birds singing

-blue sky -> birds singing -> daytime

@nr I wanted to follow up to say that I was contemplating it so much last night and decided I am going to wait until I feel more prepared in August. I think rushing to take it in June will throw off my confidence and study plan. I am planning to take it in August and September and potentially Oct and Nov if I don't get the scores I want. Best of luck with your decision - there is no wrong one in my opinion.

Maybe UCSD does? I would check!

I'm in a similar boat (scored 157 on diagnostic two weekends ago and then 155 this weekend) and am planning to take it in June and then August and October if needed. I also am aiming for a 165. I haven't done enough research into this so take it with a grain of salt, but I think it's totally fine to have a lower initial score and improve from there.

@Njbrunette lol same I had no idea what posterity meant

Does anyone know which videos in the study plan relates to this? I struggle with these type of questions and would like to make sure I understand.

I am so immensely sorry for your loss. I am confident you will be able to get back into it and that your mom is very proud of you.

I wouldn't let the LSAT make you rethink if you should be a lawyer. These tests are so hard. You got this. I think it's possible to get the score you want.

Congrats!! That's amazing

In addition to August, it's also being offered at the beginning of September if you don't want to wait until October.