I am interested too! Thank you for doing it

Yes please... very interested!

Got it, thanks!

Thank you for the session!

Is it just me? Did I just get disconnected?

Thanks

Will the winning essays be posted?

@ Thank you so much! :smile:

Makes sense. Thanks for responding!

Thank you for doing this! I'm in. How log would the sessions be?

Thank you.

Perfect! Thanks

I would analyse the incorrect answers you picked and compare/contrast it with the correct one while looking at the whole argument. Write down couple of those questions and see if you can find a pattern, the way authors came to the right answer. What do they emphasize in the argument when they came to the conclusion, what is the argument mainly about, what do they offer as a support and how can you hit it and destroy it or make a proposition that it is not the case that whatever an author claims.

I found it helpful to zoom in on certain things in the argument when reading. For Example when I read about survey where argument concludes that X is Y because of a survey, I try to find a flaw in that survey to show that it's not the case.

Or when I read Causal Weakening: X because of Y (schools are better today because of better attitude) I try to find an example that will state that there could be other things causing better schools. (Good economy, better funding and etc)

Go over Causation and Phenomenon-Hypothesis Questions and Flaw-Descriptive Weakening Questions in core curriculum. Write down every flaw JY mention in his explanation just a sentence or two and you will notice that LSAT uses the same pattern in the new questions.

Hope this helps.

interested

Focus on conclusion and find an answer choice that will weaken it, by stating that it is not the case that X is Y. Not attacking the conclusion itself but attacking the support. Like introducing something new or emphasizing some point that will make the conclusion not as sound as it does. Hope this helps.

Mumble Jumble

@ I am dealing with the same issue: I just need to reaffirm something. In the sentence.

If you cannot swim you are not a Koala Bear. - cannot group 4 indicator and not- is a negative for Koala. In Lawgic it would be S then K right? Thanks in advance.

Got it thank you for following up and explaining :smile: I truly appreciate it

IT"S BACK!

Thank you so much!

Hi @ could you please advise how I can upgrade my subscription? I am trying to purchase a yearly package but get the message "Sorry, you cannot purchase a new subscription because you already have an active subscription.Once your current subscription has expired, you will be able to purchase a new one."

Today is the last day of my monthly subscription, and I will receive an email notification sometime tomorrow regarding receipt for monthly subscription for September, so I was wondering if we could cancel that while upgrade it to yearly?

I tried to cancel the current one to upgrade and get the message: "Nothing to cancel. You have NO recurring fees." Could you please assist. Many Thanks

I agree, the bold sentence is a main conclusion, it is also the beginning of the argument.

The author states that the proposal to change the vacation is being opposed - the author reveals to us what is the reason of the opposition. It is being opposed because changing this 3 months vacation would violate 19th century tradition of 3 months vacation.

BUT then the author states that this opposition is missing it's point. (sentence in bold). And the author qualifies why it is missing it's point. By stating that, yes it might be true that in 19th century that was a tradition to have a 3 months vacation -BUT it was mainly done because back in 19th century the major schools were in rural areas where [successful harvests depended on children's labor.] - notice the strength of this language - successful harvesting depended on children's labor- that's strong no! Meaning this was a convenient time for schools to end, having children free to help out.

But now the times are different we need to change the length of school year to bring it in line with our counterparts.

I interpret this point as: Harvest depend on children's labor = good economy; in todays world economy doesn't need these kids harvesting so we don't need to stick to this tradition. We need these children to catch up with our counterparts. And if the opposition was based on the tradition, which was based on the economy then their opposition is missing the point; since today's economy does not require children to harvest, todays economy requires children to catching up with our counterparts.

Hope this helps.

M

Thanks Juliet. LSAC if looking for more ways to rip their applicants. What else is new?

Interested! Thank you!

I am interested! Please sign me up :)