Broski, give me more time to at least CLICK on the right answer choice. I swear to God I've missed them all by just 3 seconds. But so far, I have chosen all the correct answers. At least on blind review.

Would love me a wife that thinks in terms of apocalyptic disaster. How’d you let that go?

Answer choice F: “All of the above”. 💀

I feel so sad for the owl.

Are you just starting on your LSAT Journey or have you been studying for a long time now? Just curious. Because I know that this test takes some time and practice to master… so don’t talk yourself out of being a 170 scorer. :’)

Any tips on how to differentiate between SA and MBT?

For me, it was the opposite. B felt like we needed to do too much in order for it to work. B forces you to assume that the marketing campaign will fail, no questions asked. The whole time I was just asking myself "well, what if they do? What if it works?" and B couldn't provide an answer for all those questions.

And it goes even further. B also forces you to believe that the product will fail regardless of whether you create a whole marketing campaign to promote it. It tells you that it doesn't matter what you do, your product will probably fail, just like many new products do.

Which takes me to my third point: B fails to even quantify that range. What doe sit mean by many? Is it most? Some? Half? Less than half? It doesn't give you an answer. What if many refers to less than 10%? Then you have a pretty good chance of making it work.

It also feels like B is just denying the whole argument. Even the conclusion. The author says "maybe we can salvage this" and answer B says "no, you won't". And that's NOT how weakening questions should work.

But, at least to me, answer D works flawlessly. You can't ask youself "what if the marketing campaign works?" because the answer would be "it doesn't really matter that much, since these other marketing campaigns had to be cut down, which means that other products are suffering because of it, and you're still in the same shitty position". On top of that, it doesn't force you to believe anything, it just states a fact: if you do this, these other areas will suffer. Period. You can't do it. There's no arguing. And it doesn't deny any premises or conclusions. It still allows you to believe that these marketing campaigns can strengthen the new product... but it tells you at what cost. So, yes, to me it was perfect.

Actually, no. You still got it wrong.

(Just kidding, I wanted to mortify you).

Wait, when did the LSAT writers introduced the assumption that sunscreen wasn't a thing more than 25 years ago? Because I feel like they wanted us to make that assumption.

I'm a big fan of skincare and I know that sunscreen wasn't a thing decades ago. So when I was doing this question, I immediately made that assumption and chose B. But then I realized that I amde a mistake by assuming this fact and changed my answer to E, because nothing on the stimulus was telling me that sunscreen was not popular more than 25 years ago.

So my question is, when is it okay to make these types of assumptions? And also, was it even an assumption, or did the LSAT writers kind of hinted it in the way they worded the stimulus? And if they did, how did you guys see it? Any tips?

They're eating the dogs, they're eating the cats. Eat the cat, eat-eat the cat.

I selected the right answer choice, not because I knew, but because I was lucky. But for the first time in months I am completely lost.

The stimulus says that there are less car thefts nowadays, and that people are also more likely to be convicted of the crime than they were 5 years ago. So how can anybody interpret that statement as "there are more convictions".

The fact that people are more likely to be convicted doesn't imply that more people are being convicted. There's just a possibility that, if someone steals a car, they'll simply have a higher chance of getting caught and charged. So, I genuinely don't understand how the LSAT jumped from "more likely to be convicted" to "there are definitely more convictions now".

According to my understanding, when something is more likely to happen, it doesn't mean that it happens more... or am I wrong? To be fair, when I read this question I didn't even see what exactly needed to be reconciled. To me it felt like the explanation was embedded in the stimulus... Meaning that there were less car thefts because people know they will get convicted.

I don't know, maybe it's the fact that English is not my first language, but what in the seven hells were they trying to say?

Write a Wrong Answer Journal.

I guarantee you can spend up to 30 minutes just dissecting an answer. It will help you see where you went wrong the first time around and why the right answer is correct. I have been doing this even before I watch the explanation video on that question so I can compare my reasoning to JY's. Then you can revisit your journal once in a while, try to do those questions from scratch, without looking at your notes, and try to see if your reasoning for selecting an answer changed. If so, what part of that reasoning changed? Is the new reasoning wrong, is it correct or does it just complement your previous reasoning?

I made the same exact mistakes as you did, with the one difference being that I kicked one idea up to the domain (bacterial species). If, maybe I would have thought a little bit harder about it, I would have been able to come up with the rule/exception law.

I'm slightly disappointed by this, especially since my translation was completely and absolutely wrong.

I was wondering the same thing too, but I came up with this explanation. Let's use "all trees are green" as an example.

When you negate it, you say some trees are not green (T ←s→ /G). So, it doesn't matter how you look at it, some trees will never be green. You just successfully negated the idea that all trees are green. Now you know that at least 1 tree is not green, and this sentence could even imply that every single tree is not green.

So, in other words, the negation on the other side of the arrow is what really gives the whole thing its meaning.

I'm so interested. My score is still a bit lower than 160 (155), but I really need to find people that I can study with, that can share their questions with me and vice versa. I love studying by myself but I have noticed that interacting with other people who are on the same level as me or have a better understanding than I do is very helpful.

In Q4, I actually got the diagram right based on a previous exercise that we made, but I was wondering if we could also apply the embedded conditionals framework. For example, can we say (Trade → Supports Peace) → Benefits from Absence. So that if Trade and Supports Peace → Benefit from absence.

Or would that be incorrect? I mean, after all it was said that we could use all 3 frameworks to analyze the passage, so I would love to see the applicability of the embedded conditionals in this one.

This is probably a very dumb question, but I have tried to come up with different explanations and still don't understand it.

I just finished the second question. I did the translations right, but put the parentheses at the wrong place. For reference, this is how they appear on the video:

/Endanger → (Sale → /Restrictions)

And this is what I did:

(/Endanger → Sale) → /Restrictions.

It's an easy problem to fix, but I want to understand what the importance of where the parentheses go is. Are the parentheses changing the meaning of the sentence? And how do I know where they go in future cases? I have been analyzing this and, so far, I come just come to the same conclusion: both scenarios say exactly the same thing, even when you extract the inside sufficient condition.

For instance, the original example in the video would say something along the lines of /Endanger and Sale → /Restrictions. So, if I don't endanger anyone and I sell the merchandise, there were no restrictions.

And in my case, it would be: /Restriction and /Endanger → Sale. So, if there are no restrictions and I don't endanger anybody, then I can sell the merchandise.

Is there something wrong with that translation? Because I feel like there is, but I can't put my finger on it. I also wouldn't know how to avoid it in the future. I'm gessing there was a flaw in the way I translated everything? Which is weird because every idea is in the right place.

I believe he negated "survive" and made it the sufficient condition. If you see the original statement, it says that plant life cannot survive.

I believe you're getting into this lesson with the previous lesson in mind. Forget about the previous exercise, it has nothing to do with this lesson. Assume that this is a new argument that you have never seen before.

Now, compared to the previous exercise, you'll notice that this argument doesn't have any premises whatsoever. You can only find a sufficient condition embedded in the conclusion, and what's funny is that you can't use this condition as a premise. So how do you know that this conslusion can be drawn if there are no rules (premises) that confirm its validity? This argument is incomplete. It's like saying "B" and erasing the whole "If A, then B. A. Therefore, B". See all the things that need to happen to conclude that B is, in fact, the case?

That's when you take all the facts (NYC, B10+) and use them as premises. But still, the conclusion has no linkage whatsoever to these new premises. Therefore, you take the sufficient condition that appears on the conclusion, and assume that this is a fact, a condition that has been met and triggers the second part of the conclusion. Now, you have four facts: NYC, B10+, OpNo, and 3+ms.

However, these four facts are still not a premise... they're just facts. And that is precisely what the "missing rule" is referring to. The missing rule is simply the premises. You must assume that these facts are premises, that these facts determine whether the conditions that trigger the conclusion have been met.

This is how I came to the conclusion that answer choice A was wrong.

Gaby argues that, in order to be successful in life, children must follow their passions and teachers must facilitate their path. She doesn't say anything in regard to this fundamental knowledge that answer A seems to emphasize. If a kid wanted to be a dancer, and the teacher is just there to support and offer minimal guidance, then where do the other areas fall? When will the kid learn math, literature, history, biology, and all the other topics that are part of this "fundamental knowledge"? She doesn't specify.

Logan, on the other hand, argues that only the teaching of fundamental knowledge can make a kid successful, and only teachers who focus on providing a disciplined and systematic instruction can help them. He does have something to say about it. But the lack of context from Gaby make this impossible to answer.

My summary was "P v. PF".

P being the first type of bacteria mentioned and PF the second. This summary allows me to remember P and what it does, the solutions to the problem, and the characteristics of the soil where it doesn't thrive; and then I also think of PF, where it grows, what it does to P, and the experiments made.

But this summary is leaving out the author's hypothesis. So my question is: do we need to know what the author's hypothesis is? Or is it okay if we just focus on creating a summary that allows us to remember the details about the text? I notice that not putting the emphasis on the author makes it a little harder to see what his position is (not impossible though), and maybe this approach will cost me time when it comes to answer these questions. But I also believe that, with practice, looking for the author's position will be a little easier since it is an important part of the puzzle.

Same. I was panicking thinking that MSS questions could also be worded as MC. The question stem threw me off, and I decided to answer it as a MSS instead of MC :(. But now I know that my instinct should always prevail.

I thought it would be C, and this is how I justified my answer:

If mountain sickness involved a disruption of blood circulation in the brain, then there would be no distinctive characteristics between mountain sickness and cerebral edema. The argument seems to imply that the only thing making cerebral edema a life threatening condition is that it could potentially affect a vital organ (in this case, the brain). But if mountain sickness had the same risks, then what is the point of differentiating those two? Mounts sickness would be equally bad, equally dangerous. And I simply wanted to prevent this from happening.

So my question is, how do I know when to make these crazy assumptions (such as using a particular type of treatment, especially when the argument doesn’t even mention the possibility of a treatment)? If the argument made at least ONE mention of it, I would have considered A as an answer choice, but the author didn’t even talk about, so I disregarded it without a second thought. If anything, the only mention of it is the fact that people can recover from it. But recover how? Maybe with some rest, who knows. All I’m getting from this is that I have to pay attention from the tiniest details. But even then I would have fallen for the same justification I gave to AC C. How can I avoid this in the future?

I thought it was equivocation because business trips probably meant that she was going on business class trips. 💀

I chose the right answer under timed conditions but changed it on blind review.

I did it because the stimulus didn’t say that Zimbabwe depended on ivory trading or that banning it would adversely affect the country. Therefore, I believed that the answer required me to make an unwarranted assumption.

On the other hand, answer choice E was perfectly consistent with the text, although it didn’t strengthen the argument a lot. However, after analyzing A, I went with E because it seemed more fitting. If anything, the only thing that made me doubt about it (which is also the reason why I didn’t select it the first time) is that the content didn’t reflect any kind of principle.