@ThomasMunnia When the word "should" pops up in a conclusion or a premise that is trying to indicate a rule of sorts, it's prescriptive. It's not saying that the conclusion or rule HAS to be this, just that it should. It's a little looser.

How are Qs 23, 29 not MSS if in the stem it is verbatim asking about which one adds most support to blah blah....? Please explain it in the most 5th grade terms lol

@nimaroxo It supports the conclusion that traditional classroom education is ineffective. It's one of the reasons, in addition to classroom education being ineffective because it doesn't develop students' insights.

@EllieBonnette My understanding of why E doesn't serve as a bridge is because it still doesn't tell us the connection between pleasure and merit (which is what we are trying to connect together). It's almost too broad in a sense and would work great for other question types, but when we are trying to make the argument as airtight as possible, it leaves too much room for air bubbles to get in.

@PSERRACOSTA Same. A win is a win though

I have gotten the questions in this section wrong on the first try but all correct on BR - I'm taking it as a win lol

Idk if this is the right way to go about it but using this analogy helped it click for me:

I am trying to argue with someone who is saying that sunscreen does NOT prevent skin cancer. I want to prove this person wrong and help them think of another reason as to why their argument doesn't make sense.

We are looking at 2000-2025 as an era where sunscreen use was on the rise but also skin cancer rates.

Me, being someone who was born in the 80s (example) spent a lot of time outside as a kid and HATED when my mom would tell me to put on sunscreen, so I never did. I was okay with being a lobster for days.

We are now in 2026 and I have skin cancer. This person I am arguing with is confused as to how I could have gotten skin cancer. He stills thinks that sunscreen does NOT prevent skin cancer.

I tell him: "Well my doc asked if I spent a lot of time outside as a kid, I said yes and they asked if I used sun screen and I would say no. I hated using it. Doc tells me if I had used it, perhaps I wouldn't have skin cancer OR the cancer would be less severe. You're SOL, sorry"

Doc's prognosis weaken's the person's stance that I'm arguing with. Doc is saying that my actions from DECADES ago have resulted in consequences that I have to live with today. FAFO

Just a little confused here....when JY was laying out the possible inferences from the premises, we see that there's a connection between "good communicator" and "eccentric".

"Eccentric" has a most arrow attached to it. Why do we switch it to "some"? Is that an inference that we make? I've been trying to think of it in buckets, I know that some can include "all".

@mrcarrillo327 I believe it's when you have an embedded conditional (conditional in conditional)

@KayGar Hi, how do you check if it's because of too much time, getting it wrong, etc.? Can you check this before you decide if you want to do a BR?

@AshManicka I'd say in the context of the LSAT, yes! Though we know other things can bloom, since the question is specifically talking about trees, then we can assume that Ume is a tree.

@lilakdunn to my understanding, because you can download the Genie+ pass via the Disney app and we KNOW that Walt has the genie+ pass, then YES he is likely accessing via the app.

And we know that those who have offered their 10 goats can download the pass via the app, we also know that Walt has never postrated himself; so that means only one other entry point to the app is that he offered those propitiations to Mickey.

Nonetheless, I do believe the app piece is there to just distract from the real Q :)