How does the score conversion work? Like if only 3 sections count, are they accounting for the fourth that we take, assuming we don't take it 'simulated modern'? Or do they just completely not count the experimental section as the actual LSAT would?
#help. Regarding JY's explanation for "except", if there IS a compelling reason, doesn't that mean it SHOULD be undertaken rather than it could go either way (since except is a biconditional indicator)?
#help. There are multiple issues with this stimulus. The main reason I got it wrong is that I harped on the flaw that those in the first group may have already exercised more beforehand. What should we do in situations where there are multiple flaws that can be attacked and they all seem prominent?
How do you differentiate between SA/PSA questions that bring up principles versus Principle questions?
#help. What would a principle question stem look like as opposed to an SA/PSA question stem?
#help. So when skimming answer choices on a timed problem set, it would be wise to avoid 'all' statements if there are only 'some' or 'most' statements in the stimulus. However, we should not disregard 'some' statements because the stimulus only presents 'most' statements and vice versa. Is this correct?
#help
#help. Is the flaw here the same as circular reasoning?
#help. So its my understanding that these types of questions are different from SA in this way: the correct answer choice for SA questions simply have to bridge the gap. the correct answer choice for principle questions have to conform closely, meaning sometimes it is not enough to bridge the gap... they must bridge the gap in a way that conforms to all the information given in the stimulus/AC?
#help. When I try to think of SA questions in the manner that JY explains them, I get caught up on trying to figure out all the sufficient and necessary conditions. On the other hand, when I just try to find a sufficient assumption intuitively, its easier. What should I do?
#help. This quiz seems to suggest that the distinction between PSA and Strengthens is whether a principle is involved or not... is this accurate?
#help. So answer choice C definitely is the right answer, I agree. However, am I correct to say that it doesn't mean that the conclusion is correct if that answer choice were true (I fully recognize that it only has to strengthen and does not have to be sufficient)? Because while it may be murder, it could have been solely the fanatics who committed the murders and not the ordinary people....
#help. Kind of off topic, but does "if only..." imply what comes after is a sufficient or necessary condition? I believe it is sufficient but I want to double check...
Is the term "except" indicative of a biconditional or a group 3 conditional? I believe 7Sage says biconditional, but I have heard some say it is the same as 'unless' (group 3).
For conclusions that are along the lines of "this theory/explanation is wrong", I have a tough time keeping the entire idea in my head. For most questions, I will highlight just the conclusion. However, when I just highlight "this is wrong", I cannot reference the idea quickly enough. Are there any helpful tips to overcome this issue?
#help. JY says that if answer choice D said "as large as the female cat's" instead of "larger than the average male cat", it would have been a viable answer choice. To me, I don't think it would have regardless. Even if 0.5% of male cats without disease X revealed an interstitial nucleus (IN) as large as female cats', that wouldn't say much. Why would evidence of very few male cats without diseases X that have an abnormally large IN necessarily make you think that male cats with large IN may not have disease X?
I'm still in the LR section of the core curriculum. For the different question types, a lot of the lessons comprise of example questions that JY goes over. While watching those, should I just be watching his thought process or trying to answer it myself before playing the video?
#help. I chose C originally. I understand that D is more weakening, and I was between the two but chose C because it was simpler. My question is this. I could be wrong (and please let me know if I am), but the degree of weakening of the right answer choice in weakening questions varies for each question. I see C as slightly weakening, and sometimes, the right answers are only weakening to this degree... Is that correct?
#help. Couldn't it be said that Jen's statement was also supporting the premise claim in that because of the toxins, the insects do not prefer less watered plants? (and therefore AC A would work)?
If drilling takes over the problem sets, (aside from few of the most recent PTs) I will not be able to take all 4 sections of any PT without some questions being spoiled, assuming I've done all drills. Therefore, if I took all 4 sections of PTs, my score would be inflated. On the other hand, if I took the 'simulated modern' version, PT 45 and onward would not be spoiled and my score would not be boosted, giving me a more realistic score. But I have heard it is good practice to take all 4 sections. So what should I do then?
Sorry, my comment probably won't help but I definitely struggle with the exact thing you're talking about! Often times, it even results in me quitting my problem sets half way through because I feel like I'm not completing them fast enough and I'm scared to see how unprepared I am to get a good score. I think the approach you are taking is the correct one and it has been working for me as well. At the end of the day, we need to discipline ourselves to sit down, and be okay with getting messy with the LSAT. It's the only way to grow and we have to trust that process:). Hopefully we can both have success stories at the end of this journey and help others with this issue!
Is marking up a stimulus on LR to highlight and underline the conclusion and premises considered a waste of time generally?
For some reason, I am having a lot of trouble for weakening questions in LR. For me, it is just intuitively hard to wrap my head around and go through the steps of finding unwarranted assumptions and harping on that rather than the argument itself. Therefore, I can get them right if I spend a lot of time on them, but end up half-assing answers when I am timed... Any tips to get over this issue?
Is there a way to include "unclean" questions in the generated drills?
#help. I got this Q right due to POE, but seeing that inference Qs are MBT Qs, shouldn't E have to be true? And couldn't it be false if the theory (that criminals should receive longer sentences for repeat offences than for an initial offense) never acceptable???