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!

question 5 drove me crazy...

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.

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.

nice drawing JY....

those sneaky bastards...

I took this analogy to be saying that public servants are like the doctors prescribing treatment, in that they treat social issues. so I chose E, thinking that a good public servant is one that the public can rely on to know better than an average person. Just like a doctor should know better than the average person what to do.

this one is weird because the assumption you need to make for A is as reasonable as the assumption needed for E. A requires you to assume that the revolution started a little bit later than the very beginning of the 1700s, that the revolution took time before it was successful and did not instantly upon starting cause the effect, and that the effect happened gradually over time, even so much as to affect trade WITHIN the period of 1750-1765, which could be as long as 50 years after the start and impact of the revolution.

By contrast, E requires you to assume that economic stimulation is connected to trade, and that the initial regulation's stimulation was not instant. It also requires you to assume that the trade increase was due almost entirely to the regulation. It finally requires you to assume that government regulation would not necessarily decrease trade, i.e. could stimulate the economy.

not sure if i'm missing something, but i feel like this is a bit of a sketchy choice between A and E.

great explanation!

#help #feedback there is still an error in the video player where certain videos (it seems more common for the "you try" explanations) have no playback adjustment options. i can't adjust the speed/volume or skip through like I can in the others.

voicy horns and horn...like voices

#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.

it's pronounced mar-kyoos. not markooza

after attempting to understand it multiple times, i have literally no idea what the response is saying. good thing it's irrelevant to figuring out the method of reasoning. but still, the lsac just put a completely nonsensical string of words in the stimulus lol

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.

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.

Sometimes jy is pretty funny

22 was insane 21 was hard too

#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!

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

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