Kevinnnn 🥰

they circled the question in the blind review but i trusted myself and chose the same correct answer again in the br. lets goooo

Shallow dipppp!!!!

I thought this was a MBF question oops :')

A couple months back when I started studying for the LSAT and first came across this section, my brain just rejected to comprehend the concept so I essentially just skimmed it.

Obviously, I got ripped apart by LR question types like MBT and Parallel so right now I'm revisiting this lesson to really learn it.

And WOW, I ACTUALLY understand everything. I can't wait to get back to my LR training and see how much better I can do. I literally hear things click in my brain remembering some LR questions I COULD NOT UNDERSTAND to save my life!!!

I saw some comments that were confused about how this actually applied to the LSAT questions. I get the confusion and how it's really easy to lose motivation/interest. So I'm leaving this comment to share my experience. Everyone who's going through this step in their LSAT studying journey, hang in there. I hope everyone gets the results they want in the end :)

Was down to C and E.

Thought E wasn't good enough of an answer--I thought the argument failed to consider that having the best players DOES NOT guarantee your team will be the best, and so you don't know if your team is the most likely to win the championship. And the way I translated E into the stimulus was that it was pointing at the weakness of the premise that the best team is most likely to win and only at that weakness.

I thought C was better targeted at not only the weird premise but also the sub-conclusion of that team being the best team.

Truthfully, both sucked and I still don't think E is good enough of an answer :p

Oh this one did not click for me at all. Chose A and then B in BR.

this question felt like a word salad because i highlighted 'corporate income tax.'

I immediately thought the answer would point to how the constituents would find reducing corporate income tax irrelevant to them on a personal level--because of the inadequate wording of the survey (like who likes high taxes??) my thought process was like yeah voters don't like high taxes because they personally don't want to pay high taxes. But what's corporate income tax got to do with this?

I had to spend some time analyzing each answer choice and finally arrive at B.

Where is Professor Dan Epps's video gooo :0000 #Feedback

Broke my streak ://///

Praying I don't break my streak 🤲🏼 i need this

My attempt before I read JY's examples!

Confuses a condition that is necessary for a phenomenon to occur with a condition that is sufficient for that phenomenon to occur: Some people read the nutrition labels on food products. The labels contain information about fat calories in the products. Therefore, the people who read labels on food products must be healthier than people who do not read labels.

- The labels containing information on fat calories is necessary to make the argument but not sufficient.

Takes for granted that there are only two possible alternative explanations of a phenomenon (this one was trickier and I’m not sure if mine makes too much sense): People who read nutrition labels on food products consume less fat than people who do not read nutrition labels on food products. Since it is not the case that people in both groups purchase similar products based on their purchase history, it must be that reading the labels promotes healthier diets.

- The author wrongly assumes consuming less fat, and therefore having a healthy diet, is either the result of 1) picking food with less fat content 2) reading nutrition labels. Some overlooked alternative explanations would be that people in the former group do purchase similar items at the grocery store, but also eat less takeout on top of the stuff they buy from the store, doing portion control better, etc.

Got this right but was like 2 minutes over time because of how horribly worded the answer choice was

5/5 on actual and br!! been a while since i've been confident in my answers.

For (E), can we still identify "undermining" as the conclusion descriptor or at least partly? or would the piecemeal analysis be not much of help anyways? #help

must. read. every. word. of. the. answer. you. choose.

I think I confused necessary vs sufficient...yet again. I thought the argument's weakest point was the missing connection between the premise and the conclusion and overlooked the analogy.

If Plesiosauromorph fins, like bird wings, were specialized for long-distance flight, that still doesn't strengthen the argument that Plesiosauromorphs were long-distance hunters..

But the argument first requires that the author's analogy make sense and consequently that their fins are specialized for long distance flight for the author to even argue that they hunted prey over long distance. That is what is necessary.

It is not sufficient, but necessary.

If I write it out, it becomes much clearer but it's like my brain hits a reset button and struggle when I see a new problem. lol

I chose (D) because the staff belonging to a politically prominent person undermined the hypothesis that it was a "communal" object, and rather proved that the staff was a private/exclusive item.

I do not like any of these AC's but I also lowkey interpreted AC (D) like a phenomenon that happened after the change was implemented:

Say, before the change, the average number of teenage car accidents was 100 per year. 50 of those in the morning, 50 of those in the evening. Because there is no reason to assume that teenagers only drove as a means to get to school.

After the change, the overall accidents decreased to 60 per year. Now, it was 10 in the morning, 50 in the evening.

*To my understanding, "many" means "many more" rather than "some" in this context because of the "rather than."

I know the numbers are arbitrary and this interpretation requires a number of assumptions (such as, what if the original numbers of accidents were 30 in the morning and 70 in the evening, then after the change it was 30 in the morning and 0 in the evening and the overall number thus declines? this undermines the argument), but idk, AC (E) seems like it requires just as many assumptions to make valid...:-)

Took a quick look at the ACs and made the erroneous judgement that (A) pointed to a local involvement (I think the last sentence stating "local involvement AT ALL LEVELS" made it even trickier to identify/remember that the 'local involvement' the author discussed in the passage was aspects like local manufacturing, production, etc.) and that (B) pointed to an example of foreign involvement.

Not sure how to avoid this type of mistake next time, definitely seems like one of those questions I only realize I had chosen the wrong answer after the answer is revealed...

I didn't choose E because I thought it undermined the premise in the stimulus, just as I thought (B) was undermining Azedcorp's steadfast refusal to sell. :/

(D) felt like the right choice because I assumed Morris could buy more shares off others other than Azedcorp but I guess that was too much of a stretch

AC (C) does make sense but it also requires you to know or infer that the virus will be passed down in the same location. And I used to think I simply won't be able to get this sort of questions right ("how the f am I supposed to know?!"), but I'm slowly getting the subtle hints and traps the LSAT writers make that I'm more capable of picking the right answer choice.

With this question specifically, AC (A) and (C) seem like what most people had narrowed down to. As mentioned above, picking (C) without outside knowledge can feel super uncomfortable; however, I can now kind of see how (A) is a typical trap answer choice. It sounds attractive and relevant, but if deciphered correctly, you can also realize that it isn't relevant. You have to think about what is the core substance of the author's argument. The author thinks hepadnavirus is at least as old as the mentioned species' divergence based on the fact that it is present in the same location for each species. So you need to look for an AC that adds to such premise and therefore strengthens the argument. If boiled down to that, I think it is much easier to spot the best AC.

Oooooops

15/15 on blind review a win is a win :')

I was confused because the question asked for an essential characteristic of Western ontology, and I read the part of the passage like it was specifically talking A Western ontology of many Western ontologies, I did not know the definition of ontology, and how that specific one was based on self-expression. With that interpretation, it was hard to choose (C) as the correct answer.