Thanks lucas, appreciate your input!

All depends on how you're studying, to be honest. Are you doing practice sets under timed conditions? Are you blind reviewing them before you get your score and striving to get 100% on them? Are you hyper-analyzing and redoing questions you got wrong even after BR?

If you're starting to feel tired/worn out and not performing well on problem sets, you won't really improve if you just keep moving on. It's way more beneficial to just take your time with them and really focus on getting 100% correct. Build those inferences that help you recognize why only one answer is correct and all the rest are incorrect. The speed will come naturally with time.

But if you're too tired to even do that, don't feel bad about taking a break. Remember, rest is a weapon!

Thanks so much for making this! Took the November LSAT after 3 months straight of studying. Scored a 153 and was feeling pretty down about it. Taking the January one and hoping to hit higher. Reading about your journey and breakdown of the fundamentals for each section is making me feel more at ease with the process and more like I'm making the right decision. Now back to studying with me!

I struggled with this concept initially as well, I think J.Y. does a great explanation of it somewhere in his ←s→ and ‑m→ lessons.

Whereas Universal Biconditionals such as "if and only if" establish that something does not exist unless it meets both conditions ("It is a full moon if and only if the moon is at its largest" i.e. FM↔L). This statement is only valid if all full moons that have ever existed were moons that were at their largest, and all moons that were at their largest were full moons.

"Some" relationships, on the other hand, establish that there only needs to be at least one thing with both conditions to be valid.

Take, for example, "some ducks are brown" (D←s→B)

There are many ducks that aren't brown, and there are many brown things that aren't ducks. But in this relationship, you are simply stating that there exists at least one duck that is brown.

If you wrote this in Lawgic as two separate statements that aren't biconditionals, you could in theory state:

1) At least one duck is brown (D -s-> B)

2) At least one brown thing is a duck (B -s-> D)

Both these statements are still valid, so you can combine the two into a bi-conditional and it will still be valid in either direction.

Hope this helps!

I'm in the Vancouver area and planning on taking the January LSAT! I'm just powering through the last of the curriculum right now and will be moving on to PTs in the next few weeks, would be great to have someone to take the same PTs with to discuss strengths/challenges and share resources! Let me know if you would like to set up a group zoom session or something.