can someone explain what C is actually saying to me I don't understand either the video or text explanation

i lowk didn't understand what i was reading but i just looked for any AC that talked ab "the welfare of others" and picked that

Overlooked look the correct answer on Q4 because I thought that it was more explicit than implicit, could someone explain why that isn't the case. As I understand it implicit is supposed to be not directly stated but from reading the stim I didn't interpret it as such.

if this is supposed to be an easy question im cooked

hold on how is frequent or interferes chained to modernize when it's only frequent that is linked to modernize within the stimulus? how is this not in violation with lawgic rules

A was actually my first instinct but I thought that smokers who drink caffeine (Group 1) being less likely to develop heart diseases than those who don't (Group 2) wouldn't really change much because it could still be really high for both and thus a positive correlation. Ex: chances for Group 1 are 99% and group 2 are 100% it's still lower but still high enough for a positive correlation no? Or am I misunderstanding how we determine positive correlation.

bro how are people getting these in a minute

youre supposed to approach the lsat with the mindset that there is only one right answer and every other answer is definitely wrong. but how am i supposed to do that when there's AC's like A. even with the explanation given for why A is wrong and B is right, i find it difficult to accept that A is wrong.

I chose E initially but on my blind review I chose D instead. The way I thought about it was that in AC D, 2 new crimes were classified as violent, so "What if those 2 new crimes decreased dramatically for whatever reason and brought down the overall percentage of violent crime rate?". The reason why I felt unsure about my answer E is because it requires the assumption that more police = decrease in violent crime, which is a big leap.

this is bullshit bruh i figured out the exact thing e was saying when i read the stimulus but because the way its worded i couldnt put two and two together

If you're having trouble staying focused for even 30 minutes, your difficulties with drilling are more likely a symptom of a larger problem. if I were you i would first figure out what's distracting me. Phone/social media? intrusive thoughts? Poor sleeping habits and vitamin deficiencies?

Once you've identified what's causing the problem figure out a solution that works for you. For example i had trouble getting distracted w my phone so I cut down my use of it in general and when i would study i would put it in a drawer somewhere so I couldn't go reach for it mindlessly.

Can someone explain to me why Question 6 is E. Although the author doesn't necessarily agree with or support the idea in AC E of Question 6, it is something that is frequently discussed throughout the passage and given numerous examples (at least in my interpretation of the text).

While I understand why D is correct I feel that the line "there are those who are outright dismissive of The Wanderers because it contains an autobiographical framework and is populated with real-world characters." provides support to B and makes it hard for me to be sure that it is wrong.

For those who got the right answer what's the right way to approach this? I got it right out of sheer luck and when I look at this q again i don't know if i can replicate that.

if the stem has ethicist or philosopher in it you know youre cooked

conclusion = sufficient, argument = necessary

I don't really understand why C is wrong other than the fact that A is just a stronger answer. Can someone explain

4/5 -> 5/5 on BR after screwing up every lesson in this section how

The reason for why E is wrong feels weak. The stimulus states that all pin-tipped etching tools are used for engraving, which is not strong enough of a statement for us to infer they are ONLY used for engraving. So far we've been careful to precisely read the stimulus and not make assumptions, but for this question we do?

Is it worth it to watch the explanation videos even if you get a 5/5

i get these questions right but i dont understand why

E. "All monsters that are not physically dangerous, but that are psychologically dangerous AND inspire revulsion, are threatening."

Nowhere in the question is "psychologically dangerous" mentioned, yet it is a condition for E to be correct. Anyone reading can neither confirm nor deny being "psychologically dangerous" is sufficient to be threatening, so how can we say E is true? If it was inspire revulsion alone, I would understand, but its not.

@tar Also, in the actual test when you have a long chain like this, are you supposed to draw it out? Or are you supposed to be able to do this all in your head because right now that seems impossible.