It's sufficient, I had a lot of trouble with it but I learned it by saying to myself "the only 'only' that is sufficient is 'the only.'"

Why is it sufficient even though all the other only's are necessary? No idea, honestly.

It's ok that's how I felt with SA :( Just watch over the videos for the questions you had trouble with and drill.

I find these vague philosophical stimulus questions really difficult so I started watching them in 0.8x speed and taking notes along with JY. Time consuming, but I'm actually understanding it now.

These series of questions were not conducive to happiness. :(

Sometimes I listen on 1.4x or 1.7x or skim through the writing or video to get to what I want to hear.

In a previous lesson, JY introduces the list of conclusion/premises indicators. But you're right in that it's not in depth & mentioned almost in passing.

IMO, this practice provides a little bit of productive struggle. It is SO much more valuable to try and identify the premises and conclusions on your own.

Looking for key words doesn't teach you much about logic and it can become a crutch for not actually being able to identify conclusion/premises very well. LSAT writers throw those words in there as a red herring; it is a way of weeding those people out from being a top tier scorer.

P= /say bad

P' = /bad rep

C= possible to be good --> say bad (bad rep)'

Maybe this will help some.

Having a "glass" of something is extremely vague. A "standard" pour is one thing. It could be 5 oz of wine, 1 oz of liquor, or whatever. I think the test writers are banking on the fact that people bring in the subtle assumption that the scientists are referring to the conception of what a standardized pour is (at least the one they use in U.S. I really don't know about anywhere else).

For example, if I introduce the idea that binge drinkers tend to drink the strongest alcohol % of wine they can find and fill the glass to the rim each time, and that's what they consider a glass, well that really changes things. And then perhaps the people who have 3 glasses a day are going to like a wine tasting where they give you like 2 or 3 oz. Maybe the scientists are from some organization or country that has a totally different standards and conceptions of what a standard serving is or should be.

I did too, and I studied economics. :(

I don't think so... you could've started the day 2 with the $10 from day 1, earned $10 throughout the course of day 2, but if you spent $11 on day 2, you'd still end up with $9.

If you earned $0 on day 2, and spent $1 on day 2, you still spent more than you earned, and you still ended up with $9. This makes sense to me, even though I still find this question annoying.

Perhaps? This is what he is trying to say:

Addictive → Bad → Ban

Therefore:

Not Addictive → Not Bad → No Ban

But he doesn't offer a reason why nonaddictive drugs are not bad for you, instead he does this:

Not Addictive → Not bad for you because people who say unnatural stuff is bad are wrong because a lot of stuff that's unnatural is ok, and anyway there's worse stuff to worry about → No Ban

AKA: Not addictive → confusing and totally off-topic tangent → No Ban

It's really weird, and none of it makes sense, but this is how people argue in real life. Lol.

I got a 151 diagnostic. I used Khan Academy when I did this test, and I did not do a blind review as they did not have the option to do this, but I could now as I never looked at the answers.

I could not finish the test in time, so I left many questions blank. It was rough and somewhat demoralizing! The time crunch is crazy. I think it's a good sign if your BR is higher, it means you get the concepts and have room to grow.

I will probably do a blind review for this test now, because your comment reminded me I could!

Diagnostic 151 / RC -6 / LR -9 / LG -13 / LR -15