@calebjamesthayer currently studying at 10:30pm in a library, and I burst out laughing after reading your comment.

@dinamishak99 pls I wish ... compared to the lsat, those ACT questions were so easy

@jordynolson2713100 real

@RebelD and even if it correctly used "which" instead of "who," you'd still approach it the exact same way.

@Jarry keep practicing charting, and making deductions from, formal logic chains. my experience with FL can be summarized by the following conditional: if practice increases, then speed increases

@rainbowmit1 wait i googled it and i'm wrong goodbye, sorry for being a smartass, goodbye

Correction: Padawans are Jedi (members of the Jedi Order), but they're just not Jedi Knights (who are required to pass the trials). you're welcome :0

@natnusca If square, then rectangle.

If NOT rectangle, then NOT square.

@Latenightlogic Answer choice B is wrong because it is outside the scope of the argument. B says the author assumes that corporations hanging up motivational posters are representative of all corporations, whether they hang up posters or not. For instance, I live in New York City, and I think the weather is nice today. If you conclude that “everyone in New York City thinks the weather is nice today” because I told you so, you’re assuming that one person’s opinion is representative of the entire city. You are taking for granted—assuming—that I can speak for the entire city. While this is a common logical flaw, the author isn’t assuming that these corporations must speak for all corporations.

What, then, is the flaw? TLDR, the author is concluding: Motivational posters won't boost employees' motivation to be productive because almost all employees' are already motivated to be productive. The author is assuming a false dichotomy: Either you are productive, or you're not productive. That’s an incredibly narrow, and inaccurate, assumption, right? Fun fact: I’m more motivated to be productive today than I was yesterday. The author overlooks this possibility, so author needs to shut the fuck up. Why can’t the employees be more motivated tomorrow after I hang up a bunch of posters? 

Think of it this way: Imagine I’m driving from Los Angeles to San Francisco, which is a 380 mile drive. My car is capable of driving up to 400 miles, and my car has gas. Thus, I can drive from LA to SF without stopping.

Did you spot the flaw in my reasoning? I told you my car has gas, but I didn’t tell you how much gas it has.

@studying4lsat123 I am also a writer, and I, too, just made this very same mistake. Great to know I'm not alone!

came for the lsat, stayed for the comments section :o

@NicholasRestrepo word