I guess my problem was I just don't know what false believes were. I thought it meant you tell yourself you believe it, but you don't really believe it.

This lesson is honestly the key for getting level 5 curve breaker MBT inference questions right.

#feedback I dislike your explanation for why E is wrong for the following reason.

The thing about insulation is that it not only keeps heat in, but it also keeps heat out. In a perfectly insulated room, it could be 200 degrees outside, yet it will still be room temperature inside. This is how the space shuttle can survive reentry. Knowing this, E provides a plausible alternative explanation to the conclusion of "it was AC that changed architectural preference", thus weakening it. Coming from an Asian family, we never turned on the AC for this reason. Just close your windows until the sun goes down.

So obviously I was debating between C and E and ended up being unlucky.

The trickiest part about question 12 is reading the question right. I read it as "both authors would disagree with one another about ..." I recall thinking they would both disagree with E and crossed it off.

Thank god for process of elimination. Until the explanation, I have no idea why E is correct, but I could articulate why the other answers were wrong.

OMG, didn't even occur to me that you could just fire the other guys, which was why E made no sense to me. AAAUUUGH. What if you are just not smart enough to think of the correct logic? Are you just screwed?

This happens to me too! Here is what I tell myself. To get an answer truly correct I must articulate why the answer is right and why all the other answers are wrong, so in a way, I have two methods of getting it right. First is to find the right answer. Second is to eliminate all the wrong answers. If I fail either one, I deserved to get the question wrong. So, if I got it right through "not second guessing myself", I still deserved to get it wrong except I got lucky, which proves nothing.

As you know the LSAT often have attractive wrong answers. It often is our job to succeed in explaining why an answer is wrong. For example, just recently, I got PT86, section 1, question 22 wrong when I was debating between two answers. I saw that both C and D are pointing to the same issue I had in my mind, but I failed to notice that the wording "cannot be restored" was too strong. My provability detector was off, and this question showed me that it needed calibration. Had I stuck with D, what would it have proven? Should I pat myself on the back for being lucky? All I would be doing is to trick myself into thinking I am smarter than I actually am. I still wouldn't have known "cannot be restored" was definitely wrong for being unprovable in a MSS (aka most provable) question.

This topic demonstrates the positive, negative, false positive, false negative concept (which I don't remember the name of). If you are in a situation where you are not good enough to know why a wrong answer is wrong, then you should be glad that the test gave you a positive result by flagging the question to your attention. Think of how many false negatives you got where you equally didn't master the proper foundation, yet you got it right through luck. In my opinion the second situation is much worst considering you're not even aware you got it wrong.

Sorry for the wall of text. TLDR: If you are second guessing yourself, then as Kenshiro from Fist of the North Star meme would say "Omae Wa Mou Shindeiru" which translate to something like "you already got the LSAT question wrong and need to work on the associated basics".

I'm surprised that this was a 180 question. I thought some other questions on this test was much harder. I think this is one of those rare cases that if you're too dependent on mapping out the lawgic, you would miss the forest for the trees.

When I read this question, I translated it as two people making claims yet one or both must be wrong. Problem with the conclusion was it automatically sided with one person over the other. And, in A they auto sided with Morgan rather than the news, which was the same mistake. I solidified my choice when I noticed no other answers was even close to my translation.

Also, anyone else notice that parallel reasoning questions are almost always exact carbon copies of stimulus in terms of structure, yet parallel flaw is not so picky on structure? I think if you go looking for structure parallel in parallel flaw questions, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

The subtlety in 22 is just too much. I even had the correct expectation. I expected something like "if your endangered and they split you, then now there's two species to worry about". Knowing the answer, I can see why E is exactly like my expectation. But dam, you have to have genius IQ to see that.

How does a caveman even know what he looks like? They didn't have mirrors back then. I call BS on the identification and empathy hypothesis. No mother ever thought, "Oh, I'll help my injured baby because she kind of looks like me". I'm siding with passage B on this one.

If the plot of Awakening is really what the video says it is, then the passage was completely misleading. How do you get "experimented with impressionistic methods to explore unrecorded aspects of the female consciousness" or "embraced impressionistic approach more fully" or "focus on faithfully rendering the workings of the protagonist's mind" from that? Are we even talking about the same novel? After reading the passage I was expecting some sort of master class demonstration of good writing. Instead, I get something that reads like bad fan fiction.

#feedback It was hilarious, because I was thinking the exact thing while reading. Do I need a sociologist to tell me that people influence society and society influences people?

You are not the asshole. Keep it up! The person who wrote this BS is the real asshole.

I just realized that I've been annotating incorrectly all this time. Instead of trying to give low-res summary for every paragraph. I really should be giving a low-res summary for every "chunk" of passage. Chunks of passage are bits of the passage that are separated by natural passage breaks.

How is a single position passage different from spotlight passage? Can't you use the spotlight framework to understand this passage? Let me tell you about this thing (stealing thunder). Here's why it's works (reasons 1,2,3,4).

Good old Mass Effect. If your civilization uses the mass relays, it advances technologically in a predetermined path designed by the Reapers, so that they can easily overpower and harvest technologically advanced civilizations every 50k years to make more Reapers.

I knew what it meant before even reading the passage. Who says gaming doesn't pay off?

Man, you are right that spending more time upfront saves time later on questions. I am blazing through the answers. This should have taken 31 seconds? Did it in 12 ha!

I have question about blind review. I've noticed on many questions in LR and RC such as this one that the answer is obviously X. Do I still need to go through all the other answer choices explaining why each answer is wrong? Or can I just do what you did and say because it's not X.

To be honest, I didn't even notice validate, but I did notice that the question said summary rather than main idea. I thought E wasn't a summary that covers all of the passage, as it only contains content from the last paragraph whereas C covers the content from all of the paragraphs. Is my reasoning valid or did I just get lucky?

People who write like this need to be shot! You know their only goal is to pretend to be smarter than they actually are. They pretend that their degrees in underwater basketweaving deserve an ounce of respect by making simple topics seem more complicated than they are. Their strategy is to go to the grant office to ask for funding and despite their actual projects are the equivalent of catching 3 butterflies, they pretend that their projects are as important as holding up the heavens by using complex jargon to confuse the simple minded. God, I hate these people so much!

Omg, no wonder I'm getting these main point questions wrong. I thought it always has to be a summary of all the paragraphs... Thank you for this clarification!

I have a question about B. Despite the passage never mentioning medical textbook's need to be authenticated by the experts, can't I make the inference from the custom-made drawings that any drawings, even ones in textbooks, need to be authenticated before being used in court? I heard your answer which was "you can't", but why not? I would imagine that any evidence introduced in court should have the proper introduction on whether it is relevant and appropriate. In other passages, I hear "Despite the passage not mentioning X, a reasonable to infer X". Problem I have right now is that I don't know for sure which inferences are reasonable and which aren't. It's like walking through a landmine. Every step I take fills me with worry and dread.

Do you recommend marking the passage on the real test or the practice tests? For example, mark where the internal breaks occur using the highlighter option, or highlight key words or mark the location of the different opinions in different colors.

How do high scorers read? I read really slowly, and it takes me around 3.5 minutes to read a passage. I desperately want to speed up, because I often run into timing issues during the RC sections. For me, I hear the words in my mind as my eyes move across the words, so I basically "hear" the 2.0x speed narration as if I am playing this video on 2x speed. If this is not the optimal way to read, please let me know, so I can practice another technique.

So, there is a format to how to effectively annotate essays. If this were a phenomenon hypothesis style essay, you would annotate it as P1 phenomenon, P2 hypothesis, P3 experimental evidence, etc. And for debate style essays you would do something like P1 Intro to debate, viewpoint 1, P2 viewpoint 2, P3 author's viewpoint etc.

Wow, these such useful lessons are coming a week before my LSAT nice. Lucky me.