What was the process like getting approved for accommodations? what sort of documentation was required? Would a medical note recording your diagnosis and the effects of it be considered enough evidence to support your need for accommodations? I also have bad ADHD and have been wondering what will be needed in order to apply for accommodations.

I have been struggling with NA questions and feel they've been a hit or miss for me. Someone on the last post made a point about negating the AC and finding the negated AC that completely RUINS the argument. That really helped me here!

From how I understand this argument, it uses the comparison of homo sapien DNA and modern human DNA to provide support for the conclusion that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens didn't interbreed. Why? Because modern human DNA is significantly different from Neanderthals AND (assumption) modern human DNA and homo sapien DNA is similar enough to be able to use that comparison as good evidence.

When you negate C, you are left with "The DNA of prehistoric homo sapiens WAS significantly more similar to Neanderthals than is the DNA of contemporary humans". The whole support structure of the argument is saying "hey! old homo sapiens and modern humans have DNA that is similar enough, and modern humans don't have shit in common with Neanderthals. therefore, homo sapiens probably don't have a lot in common with Neanderthals either and def didn't interbreed with them".

If we turn around and say that Homo Sapiens, actually in fact, DO have a lot in common that ruins the support for our argument. That is why C is the best answer, as its necessary to the argument that homo sapiens don't share significantly more similar DNA to neanderthals than the modern humans whom we've already established share nothing in common.

I might be off base in my analysis, but this is how I worked it out in a way that made sense to me!

I'm having a bit of a tricky time with the "most before most" arguments. Taking the example above, would this be considered a valid conclusion instead?

Most of America's almonds are grown in California. Most of America's almonds are exported to Brazil. Therefore, some almonds grown in California are exported to Brazil.

AA--m-->GC

AA--m-->EB

AAEB

#help

I WILL take this exam and I WILL score in the 170's. I WILL be the first person in my family to go to law school. Manifesting and speaking this into existence for myself.

#feedback #help

I'm trying to sort through exercise 1, and figure out the best answer. I correctly guessed A and C, but if this question were on the LSAT which answer would be considered "most correct"?. Is it best to choose the answer that relies on the sufficient or necessary condition?

Being a Jedi is sufficient for being a force user. In order to be a force user it's necessary you have years of training. Tom fails the necessary condition so we can validly conclude he is neither a force user or Jedi. Would the best answer be the one directly attached to the necessary condition, i.e Force User? Or do we carry that out further towards Jedi? I'm unsure which is considered most correct based on the formatting of the LSAT.

Initially got this question wrong and chose A. During BR I was looking over my notes and breaking down each answer to double check it was both descriptively accurate and relevant to making the argument bad. Thats when re-reading D clicked into place, and for the first time this section I understood what breaking down both components actually did for analyzing AC's. Feeling optimistic!

This one was really tough for me- woof. I'm writing out my thought process to hopefully understand a bit more why D is correct and E is incorrect. If my reasoning is wrong, feel free to correct and hopefully this helps out someone else.

Analogous argument I created to help me better understand:

There are already more old recipes in the world than any human could make and appreciate in one lifetime, recipes that can satisfy virtually any taste imaginable.

Therefore, new chefs who believe their recipes can make people feel more fulfilled than they otherwise could be, are mistaken.

Assumptions in the argument: there is a cap and maximum fulfillment/enjoyment you can gain from recipes. Once that quota is hit, you're done.

E: presumes that the # and variety of old recipes already existing affects how much people can enjoy new recipes.

- the author doesn't think that old recipes mean you cannot enjoy the taste of new recipes. The author thinks that because we have so many old recipes that can satisfy pretty much all tastes, that new recipes aren't adding anything new to the table. Old recipes don't mean you think new recipes taste like shit. You simply don't have a need for new recipes because old recipes hit our fulfillment quota, and there's nothing more to be gained from trying out new recipes.

D: if someone doesn't have access to the majority of old recipes, 1 new recipe could add fulfillment they otherwise would not have had.

- the author does neglect to consider this possibility. The argument RELIES on saying "everyone's maximum satisfaction is already met because we have so many old recipes for them to enjoy, that new recipes don't have a point." Everyone MUST have access to these old recipes in order for this argument to work. But we never establish that everyone does in fact have full access to this list of old recipes.

It's not that new recipes taste bad and cannot be enjoyed, it's that we're already full and stuffed from the old recipes that new ones have no purpose that's not already being fulfilled and met. But what if someone doesn't have access to old recipes? Their fulfillment levels haven't been met then, so a new recipe COULD in fact bring them a level of enjoyment they did not have previously met.

I've been doing decent on AP questions so far if I trust my gut. Got this one correct but on the BR was trying to remember how to identify a Causal relationship and thought maybe it was C due to the language used. Because it opened with a question I got tripped up and second-guessed if it was causal. I literally noted in my BR that it didn't seem to provide an observed phenomenon and that it felt like a weak causal relationship, but still changed to C. Ugh. I need to trust my gut.