I also recommend doing the 7 sage curriculum. I didn't find the curriculum for LR or RC as good, and just pick and chose weak spots since I thought the prep books were more thorough. However, for LG, what I learned from prepbooks (specifically LSAT Trainer) felt pointless, so I did almost all of the 7sage curriculum from the very beginning. This website is known for how well it teaches games, and I feel like doing their curriculum is quite helpful- it goes through each type of game and breaks down how to go about it. This helped me a lot, because before that, I was just doing something similar to you.

id cry if i had this passage on my real lsat, thats all

E is wrong because it is way too restrictive, not powerful at all, which is what I first thought like lots of other people. If you struggled to see this- another thing I realized, is that it's quite obvious how restrictive C is, and if you take another look, you see how similar C and E actually are.

C is saying, pollution will happen only if ALL of the dairies DON'T meet the standards. Just like that, E is saying, pollution happens if NONE meet the standards. Literally the same thing, and way too restrictive.

What is 9/10 fail? That means no pollution? Makes no sense.

D is exactly what you need.

For an answer choice to have been better than D, we needed one saying, that pollution will happen if ANY or even SOME of the dairies fail to meet the standards.

I knew I was looking for a difference in the type of affection between chimpanzees and humans but while taking the test i just couldn't find it- the pressure got to me, and the wording is so subtle imo! ughhhh

IF it helps anyone, idk if this was in the 7sage lessons... but whenever I see an "unless" I replace it with an IF NOT, and it just turns super easy to diagram.

so mad at myself. face smacking myself. i didn't see the "written portion part". i just thought it said that everyone who takes the exam passes. and that's probably why none of the AC looked very good to me either. gah.

I was in the same boat as many and chose E because it felt more powerful than D, when in fact, it actually isn't. It's too restrictive. It says there will be pollution if NONE of them meet the standards, but according to the stimulus, there will be pollution even if only most of them don't meet the standards. E would have been the better answer choice if it said "if any of the dairies fail to meet standards" or something like that, this would have been more powerful. The E we have just is restrictive.

From what I understand, you're planning to apply this spring for admittance this fall? Okay, if that's the case, obviously don't wait till the summer to take it. If you want to gain just a few more points, LG is where you should definitely concentrate upon. It's the most improvable area, and you can very easily pick up a few more points from there! Just really focus on setting up your game board and making those initial inferences. Once you become good at that, the questions will become super duper simple!

@equallyyoked477 not the og poster, but i read the loophole and really improved from it. It's approach was far more palatable to me then the more formulaic and methods found in the trainer or the LR bible. While I thought the bible and the trainer were useful in learning conditional reasoning and logic (which I think the loophole brushes over a bit) I found it challenging to transfer what I learned from the trainer and bible onto the actual questions, especially during timed testing. Loophole however was far more digestible, and its tactics were far more replicable and more easy to turn into second nature.

I didn't fully understand the stimulus, but the way I got this right was by remembering that for an NA question, the NA has to be provable by the stimulus. If the conclusion is true, then the NA has to be true. (C → NA and NA → C).

I knew it general that the answer choice had to link welfare of society to either benefiting small segments of society or large scale government projects, which is why I kept A in the running.

Then, I got rid of B because there's nothing in the stimulus about tsomething other than government doing these projects. Seemed like a pretty weird AC. Especially with the "more likely".

C is easily out because there's nothing about how referendums are less democratic just because they may diminish social welfare. This AC would require us to make the assumption that the diminishing of social welfare undermines democracy.

D is too strong. Nothing in the stimulus supports this. Nothing in it says welfare of society is the PRIMARY anything.

E is too exclusive. Again, there's nothing in the stimulus that says referendum is the only way. It just compares between referendum versus elected officials. That doesn't mean those are the only two options.

I think that makes sense- my thought process also included the fact that the wrong ACs don't properly address the conclusion regarding fatalities. So the the conclusion says there is less fatalities BECAUSE of the speed reduction. We always have to question the conclusion, especially with Flaw questions. So after identifying the conclusion, our reaction should be... but what if speed reduction wasn't the reason for fatality reduction?

What if there was another reason for this decrease in fatalities? That's what we need to look for in the ACs, another reason.

A) Highway traffic has not increased over the past year

Okay, since they didn't increase, let's say it stayed the same. Why would the same amount of traffic mean there were less fatalities....it wouldn't! This isn't something the argument takes for granted, though, this could potentially strengthen the argument.

B) the majority of drivers obeyed the new speed limit

so what? so they obeyed the limit, does this give us another reason OTHER than the reduction of speed limits that addresses why the fatalities were reduced? No. Instead, this AC also strengthens the argument by working in conjecture with the stimulus's conclusion.

C) there is a relation b/w driving speed and accidents

First of all, accidents and fatalities aren't the same thing. Aliso, correlations are just always a finicky AC. Also, this again does not give us another cause for the reduction of fatalities- so it's not stating anything the argument is taking for granted. Instead, it just weakly reaffirms the conclusion saying that low speed may be linked to low accidents.

D) the new speed limit was more strictly enforced than the old

again, this does not give us a reason other than speed limit for the reduction of fatalities. This is telling us why the new speed limit was more successful but this isn't what we need. It strengthens the argument a bit but that's it.

As you can see, these last 4 arguments in some shape or form, if you added to the stimulus as a premise, could make the argument more stronger. But we're not looking for strength. We are looking for a flaw, something that makes this argument potentially invalid. And it is an invalid argument because it just assumes that because of fatalities were reduced after speeds were, this correlation is causation. It neglects to see if anything else may have potentially caused this reduction in fatalities.

Answer E addresses this. If the fatality numbers were abnormal the previous year, that means the reduction may just be the numbers returning to normal rather than being a cause of the speed reduction.

The key here is seeing that the issue was with the comparison, and the fact that it's a "powerful tool".That's the initial assumption being made, that these two things are comparable. Plus, A is a SA answer choice, it is two powerful and can't be proved by the stimulus. C is far move provable as it should be for an NA question.

But also, damn, what a cruel question the way they baited us like that....

thats exactly what I was thinking and I think that's definitely another reason why it's wrong. The argument says it is within our ability to solve them, it does not guarantee that they will be solved, which is what the answer choice implies.

me too! lsat writers know us too well