i had a similar situation with a juul and a two day suspension in high school and disclosed it only for one application which specifically asked ( i think it was NYU) about anything beyond elementary grade level. otherwise did not. i got into NYU and ican't imagine it was even something they thought about for more than 10 seconds

i started at a 158 and scored a 175. i studied for about 9 months every day quite diligently, and it consumed a lot of my time, but it wasn't totally unmanageable. each day i studied between 90 minutes and 4 hours, but never beyond that amount, which i always felt was unnecessary. i also worked a full time job but it was quite lax and hybrid so it gave me time to work on the LSAT.

I always liked this passage. I already took the LSAT and I still find myself thinking about the picaro character sometimes

I see why A is right, that being said, I chose B in BR and originally. The minor premise itself supports the conclusion, with the major premise (the statement about trauma that this question is asking about) providing very little additional support for the conclusion as an intermediary. However, I do see how saying that the transition was generally traumatic takes the minor premise a bit further as a general statement, which is then used to support the conclusion. I got a little tripped up on how the statement that it was traumatic was barely supporting the conclusion any more than just the second sentence by itself. And, when grasping for straws to justify B, the first sentence could be "background" for the minor premise by introducing the lifestyle transition and topic for the stimulus.

22 was insane 21 was hard too

this passage was so hard to understand

this question is weird because it's really just a simple chaining of a missing if/then statement. but something about it is confusing/hard to wrap your head around totally

my brain was imploding when i tried to read this during the pt

question 20 really required applying real-world knowledge, and assumptions. but goes to show that assumptions and reality are fair game on the lsat, so long as they are reasonable!

this question completely destroyed my brain, to the point of pain. but around halfway through the explanation it clicked- comparing 25 year olds to 65 year olds to make a conclusion about a generational difference is inherently flawed. A generational difference has to be compared when both were the same age. Like if you were to say Gen Alphas have better attention spans than baby boomers, and to prove this you compared 15 year olds to baby boomers on their death bed. What you actually need is to compare 15 year old Gen Alphas to 15 year old baby boomers, and see who has the better attention span.

I do not understand why this question was so, so hard for me to get.

C requires an assumption. The assumption is that a rule that applies explicitly to an activity can apply explicitly to a risk. A risk is not the same as an activity. Sure, they are connected, but they are different concepts.

Given that this is a principle question, yes, I think there is some leeway. I agree that "fatal injury" is probably enough to overcome the gap in assumptions. Nonetheless, I have yet to see an explanation for why we should make the assumption C requires. The assumption that a safety feature in a car, a death box, prevents risks to life, is not outlandish. Thus, A would be airtight where C fails, since driving or keeping your dangerous car is an activity.

Taking a step back, I also agree that replacing your car every time a "safety feature" is now available is absurd in the real world. Of course, that is unfortunately of limited use on the LSAT

A also poses a risk to life (denying safety features in car = more risk). And more importantly, this still doesn't solve the fundamental issue that the actual rule in the stimulus is completely useless when applied to a risk itself, and not an activity.

nice drawing JY....

This also is how I found the right answer, in addition to the sample size flaw. I think it makes sense- other toothpastes can use that formula, and other candidates can support those policies.

great explanation!

it's explained in the video at the end

i'm not quite sure but i think it's "many to all". rarely if ever means it never happens or sometimes/infrequently happens. so to negate that would say it always happens or often happens (even though often is kind of meaningless).

so basically, a translation of C would say:

if sea creatures are regularly or always wrecking habitats, they must be able to survive in that habitat after being dumped there.

#help the correlation is reversible, isn't it? greater depths also mean longer submersion times. i think this is just a true thing about correlations generally, that if A is correlated with higher levels of B, B is also correlated with higher levels of A.

the correlation going both ways made linking the statements up and figuring out an answer easy since you could more or less treat the depth and submerging time as the same thing for comparative statements.

Sometimes jy is pretty funny

#help I don't understand how a conditional relationship can be necessary- you could negate the conditional relationship, meaning that humans make wiser choices now AND no essential change has taken place in human emotions. But that doesn't wreck the argument. It seems like a conditional relationship is too strong/specific to ever be truly necessary. I don't get it!

i think there is NO scratch paper for LSAT writing, but i'm not totally sure. its only that typed box on the screen

it's pronounced mar-kyoos. not markooza

nitpicky, but for question 9 i think "Manhattan" is explicitly stated to be a book, not a movie; this seems relevant because if it were a movie, D seems more obviously the correct answer. However, Manhattan is presented as someone else's book, randomly interjected as an example of how male artists could have issues in their personal lives. D would be clearly the correct answer if this were just another of Allen's movies.

B is just a complete clusterf* of an answer...

question 5 drove me crazy...