@ Thanks for letting me know! For the watch problem, if you have a watch with a spinning bezel, you can always reset even in the middle of the section. If you forgot to reset, just spin your arrow to 35 minutes past where the last section started and then you're right back on track. Hope that helps for next time!

I got this Q right in timed conditions, but when I went back for BR I chose B. They both require assumptions and I thought B had a smaller assumption (but really it was a wild guess for BR).

A: The RDC also have a positive benefit to dragonfly larvae who need water to survive. The assumption I saw here is that 1) the wetlands have a potential to dry up meaning this is actually a benefit to them and 2) this saves more larvae than are eaten by RDC in the first place.

B: I didn't notice this in timed conditions, but the stim says "the dragonfly populations are more likely to remain healthy." To me, "populations" implied ALL dragonflies -- babies and adults. So the assumption here is that more adults live than babies die by RDC so of course the population as a whole remains healthier.

I'm not sure how to eliminate B at this point.

#help

Did anyone else choose B because it was the only one that mentioned a corporation? For principle questions, I try to stick as close to the principle as possible. I pretty much immediately got rid of E because it was an individual doing the action.

#help

I misunderstood Miriam's argument in light of AC A. I didn't totally understand it after reading, so when I got to A, I re-interpreted the argument to fit the answer. Now, I see where I went wrong.

Laurel is saying MTs must help in extreme cases.

Miriam is saying MTs must help in common cases.

It's that simple.

A - MTs must help in all cases

This is wrong for both people.

C- MTs must help in extreme cases

They clearly disagree about this.

This question is an excellent example of how RRE questions sometimes require you to make assumptions. I chose A from POE, but I see now that, while B and C require some assumptions, A just doesn't help Yeung win at all. I think for RRE questions, it's okay to dial down the part of our brain that is picking out assumptions that must be made...

Right! Thank you!

This question is a good example of how NA ACs are usually worded weakly. I was inclined to choose C just because it was the least declarative and only said "can." Obviously, it's the correct AC for better reasons, but I wonder if I would have a harder time with Q if it said "always" instead of "can?"

This question points out a similarity between NA and Strength Qs. This NA got rid of an alt cause just as a Strengthing AC can get rid of an alt cause. Interesting!

This question highlights how you need to match the subject with MC Qs. None of the rest of the AC matters if the subject isn't the same. The reason JY buzzed through these so quickly is that most of the ACs don't exactly match the subject of the main point in the stimulus. A and D are gone immediately because of that. B is a comparative statement. Those aren't made in the stimulus at all. C is a conditional statement (not usually a MC because that's a premise structure) and talks about economic consequences which aren't explicitly stated in the stimulus either.

I think the key word here is "mistakenly." Oldest trick in the book is for the LSAT writers to introduce OPA in the first sentence and make you think this is the MC. I always feel wary about having the MC be from this sentence, but in this case, the word "mistakenly" makes it an opinion, AKA the author's opinion, AKA the main conclusion.

For Q12, I crossed out C because it only listed two of the three reasons for the income gap. I see now that the answer is still supported by the passage because the statement doesn't say "the N-S income gap increased primarily because of..." It's just making a statement about two factors that contributed to the increase which is supported by the passage.

Did anyone else skip B at first because of the word "some?" I ended up choosing it because the rest were all worse ACs, but I felt like B didn't parallel the stimulus because "pound cake is lower in fat than some fruit."

Hi there! I am in the same boat. I was wondering if you could post a link to the post CC webinar? I can't seem to find it. Thanks!

This question is a great example of how all the core curriculum relates to each other! I viewed E like a necessary assumption answer. It wouldn't have been a perfect NA answer, but pretty close. If E wasn't the case (violent inmates not on a high-nutrient diet did show improvement) then the arg would be pretty wrecked. Hence, why this answer choice helps strengthen the relationship between the premie and conclusion.

This has happened to me a few times now. I got it down to B and C but I didn't think that there was an "evidence" presented in the original argument, just reasoning. Anyone else here a former debater who has a high threshold for what constitutes evidence? It's been hard to rewire my brain for the LSAT in that way.

#help

Why is C for #6 incorrect?

It says Gilliam didn't like the expectation that "African American artists produce explicitly political art." I took this to mean he just wants it to be more subtle. The passage even says "he sought an artistic form that was more expressive than a painted figure or political slogan, more evocative of the complexity of human experience in general, and of the African Amerian experience in particular" Doesn't that mean he still produces political art??

I also thought D was wrong because there is nothing in the passage about Gilliam's thoughts on the Color Field movement. Who's to say he even liked being part of this group since he's merely "associated" with them?

I am really confused...

So this question I skipped after about 30 seconds because I could not choose between A and C. Luckily, I had time to come back and I chose the correct answer. I wasn't 100% sure, though.

AC A seemed more correct because I could point to exactly where this happens, but it took me a while to figure out why AC C is 100% wrong. The conclusion says "this indicates that the health of a newborn DEPENDS to a large extent..." Written in the present tense, this definitely implies that it still exists. The premise is talking about the 19th century and the conclusion seems to talk about the present.

I think what's actually incorrect about this AC is that it says "inferring...that a past correlation between two phenomena still exists." The argument is not saying that specific correlation still exists. It's saying that a totally different causation (health of newborn and amount of food) still exists. Hence, why AC A is correct.

I think this goes for the whole passage, but especially Q14: don't get too caught up in the colonial history. The colonial examples are just that...examples. The main point is about human culture broadly. I think the ACs are easy to eliminate in 14 if you stayed focused on what this passage is actually about -- culture and identity, not colonialism.

I was seriously SO thrown off by the word "phenomenon." I even had to look it up during BR to make sure I was correct. I was interpreting "phenomenon" to mean a certain situation or fact that exists which is hard to explain. I could not figure out what "phenomenon" each AC was referring to because "advancing scientific understanding" and "paranormal TV shows" are not a phenomena. Eventually, I just ignored the word phenomenon and got the right answer by replacing it with "X" and "Y."

People seem to care a lot about this pen business, so just to clarify...the LSAC website explicitly states "Digital LSAT test takers will also be permitted to use their own pencil and eraser for making notes." If you're worried about not having a pencil, you can still bring one. I'm not sure why you would even need a pen for this test. I'd just set it aside and ignore it during the test but that's just for me. Obviously, the concern about having to take notes separately is still a bummer.

B is the obvious AC to this question because it's vague and gets right to the central flaw.

I did have a hard time eliminating E, but the more I think about, I see how irrelevant it is. Even if we grant that the author failed to consider that the legislator may oppose this act because of constituent wishes, how does this relate to the argument the author already made? The argument itself is still severely flawed.

The way I've come to see flaw questions is like this: if someone were to say this argument to you and you responded with the correct AC, they would have to run away with their tail between their legs because you've pointed out the major flaw in the argument. If we apply that idea to this question, I just see the author responding to the AC with "so what? My argument still stands. She is inconsistent in voting and we shouldn't trust her and we should approve this act." On the other hand, if you said AC E to the author, they would have to reconsider their entire position.

I don't totally understand how E is irrelevant? Do we not need to explain assertions in an argument?

On a more general note, I'm having an EXTREMELY difficult time with Flaw Qs because I overthink them and the wording of the ACs confuses me. Is it safe to say that E would never be a flaw in another argument as well? I guess explanations don't matter to LSAT arguments?

I'm having a hard time seeing how C doesn't weaken this argument? In my mind, it provides an alternate explanation/cause of the correlation so I immediately picked it and moved on. #help

You should visit the websites of every school you want to attend. From my research, the prompt is almost always the same. The want you to tell them "who you are" or something along those lines. It's the length that varies. UC Berkeley wants a 4 pg. essay whereas Georgetown wants 2 pgs. My plan was to write a 2 page version and mark where I can expand or shorten depending on the school.