What does the average number per LR mean?

#feedback Lack od videos and drills on this entire section really does not help with comprehension or information retention. We are paying for this resource to help us with the LSAT, and this choice to include no videos and no drills feels very counter-intuitive to that mission.

This video talks about alternative hypothesis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IZfmzq69iM

#Feedback. I wish there were a lot more drills available.

9/14 timed but 13/14 in BR on medium. I'll take that for my first solo RC drill!

Wouldn't question 2 have two valid conclusions? I got both of the following as valid conclusions:

Hermes watches the Olympics.

Hermes likes to eat wasabi.

Can someone please explain why "Hermes watches the Olympics" is not a valid conclusions?

#feedback I understand that using the same passage allows for a more accurate comparison; however, having just worked through this passage using the split approach, I cannot appreciate this sequential approach lesson because I just did this. I would prefer different passages.

How do we do the check, X or ? method on the online test? I really like the split method but I am worried it won't make sense to do on the computerized test.

Question. Isn't saying that the negation of irrationality being rational the same thing as confusing sufficient for necessary? I get that not irrational is wordy. But something could be not irrational and still not be rational? Or am I confusing this?

Question: How do you "eliminate" questions on the computerized test? I wish so bad there was was an easy cross-out feature.

Question: Will the section be highlighted in blue on the actual test or is this just a practice feature? Trying to see how much I should depend on that feature.

Just got my first 100% on RC drill, on medium. So stoked!

Number 2 strikes me as having 2 premises and one conclusion. In terms of getting to the point, it feels like the argument is he is not guilty, and that him asking to police to investigate is a premise that supports the conclusion, rather than the conclusion. I broke it up like this.

If Max were guilty, he would not ask the police to investigate. Therefore, his asking the police to investigate shows that he is not guilty.

Premise: If Max were guilty, he would not ask the police to investigate.

Premise: Max asked the police to investigate

Conclusion: Max is not guilty

Can someone explain how Max asked the police to investigate is the conclusion?

the 5th ave line... this man never fails with the references

Just got 5/5 on medium and got 2/5 on medium in SA. I needed this win

I think this might be the first answer I got wrong with a low priority, and I just want to say phewwwww

I think the Disney one is the strongest because it tells you that there are only two ways to achieve what we know Walt has achieved, and it tells us he did not achieve it in one of the ways, so we are left with only one answer. This argument feels clean and completely sound.

I think the mammal one is fairly strong because the conclusion is that not "every" mammal is suitable to have as a pet, and the premise was able to show one example of a mammal that is dangerous. Because the word "every" is used, the threshold to prove/disprove is fairly low; we only have to prove that there is one mammal that is not suitable to be a pet for the conclusion to seemingly be supported. While this is a strong argument, I don't think it is perfectly strong because there is room for nuance. For example, we know tigers are aggressive and can cause injury, but we do not know, for instance, whether they can be domesticated. So, we have to conclude that this premise supports the conclusion, but it does not necessarily shut down alternative arguments.

The trashbin argument is very weak in my opinion. This argument requires us to see something which is circumstantially convenient, and accept it as sound. I do not think this is good logic and I do not think this type of reasoning would stand up in court. The argument wants us to believe since the bin was knocked down and salmon was in the bin and now knocked down with he rest of the trash contents, and since the cat is licking its paw, and since we know the cat licks its paw after eating, we know the cat deliberately knocked the bin down to eat the salmon. You lost me there. I would think this is a good argument if the conclusion is we know the cat ate the salmon. I think that is likely true given what we know, but what we know speaks very little if at all to the intentions of the cat, the capacity of the cat to make that decision, and our knowledge that the cat did it. I find this reasoning to be very problematic.

Me and my homies do not fuck with Pat!!

Me, a pescetarian, thinking I was reading this stimulus, but really, the stimulus read me...

the entire SA section killed any confidence I had fml

Motivational videos of people studying for over a year are not motivating me lol. I would love to see some motivational videos of people doing it in 6 months or less, which seems more realistic to most people's lives and plans.

Time is a killer omg. I understood completely in BR, but got it wrong timed, and that was taking 3 minutes... ugh