following

lowkey the author never mentions lawyers and idk who tfbentham is but the article overall felt critical so i went with that yay

huge jump lol but k got it right so can’t complain

ive been needing this omg. sometimes i literally cannot focus enough to study with my adhd because i'm not in the right headspace but want to do at least something!

i eliminated A for being descriptively inaccurate but didn’t realize that would technically still qualify, because it’s NOT a flaw

reapplying and retaking and restudying and i'm so glad there's this section of the curriculum now! one thing i wished there was a guide for before was just like core argument trends that pop up and how to recognize them

can we automatically eliminate B because it’s a conditional?

YAY thank you

gonna start uploading my digital wrong/flagged answers journal i made to the comments because i've found it to be a useful way to blend my personal understanding of questions with the explanations i get on here

@hinashehzad oh gosh don’t get me scared about competition

i’d love to hear more about re-applicants to schools and the advantages/disadvantages that come with that!

can it be assumed that answer choices for principle questions that start with a negative (ie don't) are going to be wrong because of the logic of why d is wrong (doesn't give a real principle, just what the principle should not be)? or is that just this one scenario?

thanks! what a nice surprise in my inbox lol

if you just want practice tests, i’d recommend just using lawhub but for me, i’m bad at sitting down to take them so i like the ability to drill on here and get statistics of what i need to improve on

i started from scratch and got a 165, now i'm starting semi-from scratch again (forgot basically everything but decided i want to reapply next year with a stronger score) and i feel very much like it's something within my reach! it def depends on your diagnostic though

everyone fighting over a and b and i chose c…

went w/ a immediately bc i was like oh it has the same necessary sufficient thing going on, and the conclusion matters more for parallel reasoning than parallel flaw. but i guess intrinsic to this flaw is it being causal.

misread a as saying that some other organisms can also resist cancer. not that they can do it as well as sharks. need to get better at reading

@Niuniu also where my brain went

@sxphs so basically, relevancy ~= necessarily resolving the discrepancy. also, should've thought more deeply about all answers

went w a bc i was like what does speed limits have to do w/ seatbelt laws the stimulus doesn't mention that lol.... and didn't even rlly look at e i just went like oh not wearing seatbelts killed this must be relevant without thinking it through

my issue being types of passages (ie philosophical ones) and not the styles of them lol

@sxphs nvm i remember hehe. for anyone wondering, you can go backwards on double arrows (ie some, none) but not single (all, most)