I assumed the folks attempting to manipulate the markets were the same well-informed traders who made a profit. I feel like the answer to this question depends on the assumption that these are two distinct groups. Otherwise, if folks are using market manipulation to successfully make a profit, that is way closer to Passage B.

Assuming that an event cannot occur simply because it hadn't occurred in the past.

this makes the PTs so much more manageable! thanks for pointing this out. A full PT+BR for every question is so taxing.

I am really loving the ctrl f function when doing many of these stated questions - are there any perils to this or could this be a fine strategy if I practice it?

Finally a 100% on a drill - feels good :) hope that I needed!

I had the same question! And yes, there is a word search built into the LSAT,

I wish all of them were like this :)

#feedback I think there is the flaw in the diagramming as well--- it's not a →b‑m→c, it's a→b and [superset of a] ‑m→ c

I also mapped incorrectly and was confused by changing 'if' to 'only if' in the explainer, but your comment helped me and I think it makes sense --- the 'likely to' does suggest causality so comfort w. strangers → closer in age

sameeee

Well, between first try and blind review, I got each question right at least once... I guess I'll take that as a win!

Is it correct that some elements of the conclusion need to be in the answer for an NA question? LIke the answer needed to mention rocks right?

Just now realizing the answer doesn't need to be necessary -- it just needs to be sufficient w. these SA questions --- I avoided B bc I was thinking that doesn't need to be the case to make the conclusion true! I think I'd like to go back and do these trial questions over again in a week with this new perspective... hope it helps because I've been in struggle city.

sufficient assumption is the worst.

One of the first ones where I second guessed a correct answer on blind review.. sad.

SAME!

#feedback

If B said "leaving a parking space..." would it be the right answer? Then it would just be flat our saying the hypothesis in the stimulus was wrong, making it the correct choice right?

“I wouldn’t have gotten into law school if I didn’t have a 4.0GPA”

/4.0 → /law school

law school → 4.0

I think in this case the not 4.0 is the sufficient condition. I think it would make more sense if you start adding the "/" for negatives in your logic. My brain is definitely fried from that pet store question a few lessons up... but yeah I think the statement and contrapositive make sense:

-If you didn't have a 4.0 gpa, it is necessary that you didn't get into law school

or

if you did get into law school, it is necessary that you had a 4.0 gpa.

The rule with unless is to put the idea that's after unless into the sufficient condition and negate one of the ideas so /profits down → traffic down

It is necessary for traffic to go down for profits to not go down (or profits to go up

The rule with unless is to put any idea after unless into the sufficient condition and negate one of the ideas,

so /profits down → traffic down

It is necessary for traffic to go down for profits to not go down (or profits to go up)

#feedback interesting! curious if LSAT ever penalizes you for misunderstanding greater than and greater or equal to

Not* B is the sufficient condition - the key rule here is that the idea following "if" indicator is most often the sufficient condition.

My brain un-negated everything before writing the formula - what helps me is thinking about the statement, "it is necessary for x to y" to help with the necessary/sufficient condition placement. So in this case for me it was "necessary to invest in tech to increase capacity", so:

inc cap → inv in tech

Curious of the response to this! I wish the exam were in written form... even if we take the test at a center, it is still on a computer right?

Also interested in the DC group!

good question