Hello @ will the webinar be recorded? I may have to step away a bit early and want to pick up where I left off.

#help. I now understand why C is incorrect (since the negation of decrease is increase OR stay the same).

However, I eliminated B, and still have trouble fully seeing that it is correct, because of how specific it is in saying "significantly." I recall from the lesson on NA questions, that we should avoid overly specific assumptions, which are more likely to be sufficient assumptions. Since the conclusion says "hence, more parents will need to find daycare...", why would it be the case that it is necessary that "the number of daycare workers will not be significantly greater...."? Couldn't one counter that with "while the number of daycare workers may not be significantly greater, it will increase in proportion to demand (since no one said that the increase demand would be significant)?

Thanks in advance for further clarification.

#Help seems like this principle question stem is asking you to identify the conclusion, like a main point question. Am I interpreting this correctly? Thank you!

Will this webinar be focused on LSAT, Applications, or both?

Thank you!

Another reason to reject A: If you the predators referred to are predators of moose, wouldn't those predators have been reducing the population of moose before the wolves were introduced?

#help

I also picked E initially for this one; especially since I was seeing E as bringing in the "then the contract was violated" condition that the conclusion has. It seemed like that condition was missing from the argument.

After watching the video, I see why C is correct, but wanted to map it out to engrane this in my brain for future reference and am having trouble mapping it. Can someone please help me by suggesting how they would map this argument. Thank you!

#help

I answered d incorrectly. I now see why e is the correct answer, but I am having trouble justifying why answer choice d (D ←s→ /E) could be true.

My translation of the argument is:

JP → D → R

E → R

E → /SH

Conclusions could be:

/SH ←s→ R

JP → R

/D ←s→ /E

/JR ←s→ /E

I may have answered my own question. It is possible since the conclusion above (/D ←s→ /E) means that it is possible for (D ←s→/E)?

Thanks!

#help

I understand why E is correct, but want to be sure that I am eliminating B for the correct reason.

My assumption:

Popular = negated version of unpopular (popular = /U, and unpopular = U)

So, B states "we should modify (M) this parking policy ONLY IF (grp 3) it will NOT (negate) REDUCE POPULARITY among students (/US)." translates to: US --> M

And since we know that /UF --> US

Then answer B is saying: /UF --> US --> M

And this is incorrect because of premise: UF --> M

Is this an accurate illustration of why B is incorrect?

Hello @, I'd love to swap PS with you. I write grants for a living and have done a ton of research on writing these things (probably too much), so I love to provide feedback on writing and have a good sense for what they're looking for. Yet, of course, I'm having a heck-of-a time creating something compelling, clear, and authentic. I could really benefit from a fresh set of eyes on my PS and it sounds like you could as well. If you'd like to swap still, email me your PS at Admin note: Deleted. Spam bots might pick up your email! Please use DM.

Take care, Iris

Nm I just saw the real/fake discussion thread and answered my own question.

I had 3 LR's and I thought one of the sections was super hard.. I usually don't have issues finishing the LR sections and I barely finished that one in time. I actually guessed on a couple that I had meant to return to. I don't remember a PTSD question or anything about Planet 256 on my LR's though. I do remember the T Rex question.. was that section real?