@JessicaRamirez DM’d!

I worked full time during my LSAT prep. It's definitely demanding but I told myself that it is what I wanted no matter what. It works for some people and it doesn't for others. You have to really ask yourself if you it's something that you can handle.

so here is one inference I didn't know. Are there other inferences we can make about most/some statements?

@Kevin Lin Hi Kevin, are there other inferences we can make using most/some statements, other than the ones taught in the core curriculum?

I'm not sure why A can't be an NA. If we deny A, doesn't it give us: Of the armadillos living in the area of the tagging site last spring, MOST were able to avoid being tagged by the researcher.

If that's the case, won't it show that the researcher's sample is too small to make that conclusion?

What's the proper way to negate a "few would be able to...." statement?

@J.Y. Ping Apologies! I meant that for a 3-section PT, the break should be after you have completed two sections. Now it's after you complete the 1st section (probably because the real first section is gone due to getting rid of the experimental).

suggestion: with a 3-section PT, put the 10 minute break after the 2nd section.

I can see that D is linking objective evaluation --> discuss aesthetic value. But I can't see where poem has whatever meaning assigned by its reader is playing a role? Isn't it an important part of the conclusion?

I didn't choose E because I thought that "take the offer" is different from "want it?" Like, you may not actively want something but would still take the offer?

no

I noticed that for some RC passages, the last sentence of the passage would seem like that the author is suddenly pivoting. I would view this passage as one of those examples. The last sentences say "That, at least, is the consensus of the so-called experts. One wonders whether the Bambaran artists would agree." That just make me wonder what I just read. Like, this kind of tone shift would make me wonder if the author is trying to insinuate that the content in the entire 3rd paragraph is actually doubtful, or that, in this case, the author actually disagrees with the book writer. These kind of last minute pivots always throw me off and just mess me up entirely. Sometimes they make me question the MP. What is a good approach to them? How should these sentences be viewed?

really didn't like B because of the word "consequences," which I thought just didn't capture the "long-term stability of this way of protecting groundwater is unknown" part. Also didn't like the "drilling in complex geologic systems" part because it just captures one part of the support and cannot be said for the rest of it.

I chose B. Wouldn't the theoretical trainings described in paragraph B count as non-fiction? Also, I eliminated E because I had trouble equating ethical dilemmas with the emotional dimension of patients' needs.

My question is what usually constitute as data in LSAT language? I didn't think of the study as data.

I actually think that the first part of the diagram should be drawn as: displayed --> 20th century --> loan OR permanent. Can a tutor look at this? #help

Yes.

subset vs. whole set

argument uses evidence of subsets to conclude about the whole set. the correct weakening question points this out by pointing out other subsets

This shows the importance of reading the question stem lmao

I am still having trouble seeing why A is the correct answer. I understand that (A) says that the critique of internal relations is that it fails to define entities. But the author is critiquing internal relations because it's impossible to define relationships. But doesn't the internal relations theory say that to define an entity we need to understand its relationships? But we cannot understand all of its relationships. And that's what the author is attacking?

I am still confused about D. I didn't think that "social conventions" and "jurists' interpretations" are the same thing.