I really do think 7sage is a great service. But I am shocked by how often JY skips over the most important parts of why an answer is wrong / right, and refuses to engage with certain problematic parts of an answer choice that would lead many to think it is incorrect. Sometimes it almost feels like he purposefully skips over the most problematic parts of an answer choice. He holds the right answer to a much lower standard than the other ACs.

For example, with question 6, we are looking for two things: protest fiction and racial injustice. I, like many others, was stuck between B and D. B has the "racial injustice" part, but in my opinion lacked the "protest fiction" part, especially when told it comes from actual events. D is the opposite: it has the "protest fiction" and lacks the explicit "racial injustice."

JY just proceeds to assert that D lacks racial injustice and so its gone, regardless of its protest fiction. Okay, that's fine, but then hold B to the same standard. And when he's reading the answer choice, he conveniently just skips over "actual events that occurred", like COME ON. That's the most pressing part of the AC. You show it has racial injustice, but where's the protest fiction. Really frustrating and I have noticed this on many explanations. The right answer is consistently treated much less rigorously than the other wrong answers.

For Q1, A is ridiculously unsupported. How is it a reasonable assumption that the researchers work for the oil companies? The oil companies are presented as context in the very beginning to illustrate a problem, and then the rest of the passage shifts to the activities of the researchers. It says: "oil companies need platforms." Cool. That's a fact we are given. "But since they are dangerous, researchers are looking for a solution." Out of this, how could you possibly infer with accuracy that these researchers work for the oil companies??? I immediately ruled out the two ACs that began with oil companies because the passage is not about oil companies at all; it's about the work of the researchers in their quest to redesign the pumps. I think it is completely unreasonable to make this assumption that they are working on behalf of the oil companies, especially when there's not an inkling of support. I understand with these questions you are just looking for the "best" answer and not the entirely correct answer, but I really think this attribution of all this research and experimentation to the oil companies is grossly inaccurate to the point where it doesn't come close to remotely correct.

Researchers can work for the government. Researchers can work for other contracting companies. Why the hell do they have to work for the oil companies in question?

It is so ironic that the LSAT expects you to make this unsupported assumption when at other times it punishes you for making these assumptions. We have specifically trained not to make this assumption only for it to be required here.

#help

^^^

On the test, what is the strategy for conditional logic chains? In general, should we have scratch paper to draw out these chains? Or would that eat up a lot of time? I got the answer right after thinking about it but it took a while. How do you answer this quickly?