I work for a D.C. think tank. I'm so sick and tired of the D.C. politics. I will head for the west coast for law school this fall... I know this is not helpful...I just feel compelled to add another miserable aspect of D.C.:) BU and GW are both great. I think your decision should come down to where you plan to practice what kind of law and which school can best help you achieve this goal.

Do the orders of passages and games in the other thread matter? I remember those passages/games but not in that order.

I remembered both LRs have 26 questions and LG has 23 questions. Unless RC has 26 questions, the total should be 102. I dont know if RC only has 26 questions. I feel it was a standard 27- questions session

I just did so for PT78 passage 3. This time I had bad luck since this passage happened to be the hardest passage of the set. Usually doing the longest passages first puts my nerve at ease and forces me to keep moving. But I need to learn to skip if the longest passage happens to be difficult.

I went to Cambridge LSAT website today and I can see PT75 and 76 for sell at 10 bucks each. https://www.cambridgelsat.com/preptests/4-section/ Are these legit?

Wow that's great! Thank you very much guys!

Hi Matt, how do you find the explanation? Is there any easy way to navigate videos by PT? Thanks!

Purely analytical deduction works better for me. Alternatively, you may want to get the LSAT SuperPrep to see how the test makers solve logic games. I see logic game as a misnomer while almost no one still uses its official name: analytical reasoning. The split-game-boards approach is like a programming style iteration, which, I think, does NOT align well with the essence of analytical reasoning. FYI

@7sagestudentservices I upgraded from Basic to Ultimate shortly after I purchased the Basic; I emailed you but I didn't get extra six months... I'm crying here...:(

thanks @eduanna675 and I gave you 5 points haha

This diagram works better for me:

no one believes in money --> money exist (meaning, money doesn't always exist)

(A): exist --> always exist

money always exist --> money exist

money exist

Could anyone share his opinion on how to interpret "impossible to predict" mentioned in the passage?

I'd say this works for me, though I practice speed reading from a different source. I'm a natural reader. Before I used the speed reading techniques, I generally spent 3.5 to 4.5 min to read and notate. After some practice, I can read without stop for 1:00 to 1:30 per passage. If I notate and sometimes read back to check those referential phrasing, I can still finish a passage in around 2:30 with a quite good comprehension. English is my second language. I can do it. Why not you guys?

Please don't read my previous lengthy summary...It's entirely wrong....

I mis-represent the entire argument structure and beemomo8's summary is correct. There's no so-called difference between "the original generalization" and "the generalization at issue". Analyzing the stimulus and the answer choices at this level is very dangerous...

The argument structure is as simple as:

1) the original generalization:

-ee words → a person affected by that action

2) the "absentee" counterexample:

-ee words ←s→ a person performing that action

3) the revised generalization:

if a two-party transaction → (-ee words → a person affected by that action)

narrow down the original generalization.

Strictly speaking:

The original generalization and the final qualification are not exactly the same.

Because the original generalization doesn't mention a two-party transaction. It could include multi-party transactions. Ultimately, the original generalization can be abstracted to a two-party transaction: the one who performs the action and the one who is affected by the transaction. So essentially the final qualification doesn't narrow the scope of the original generalization, but rather elaborates on it to make it more clear.

Another supporting evidence for my interpretation that "the generalization at issue" doesn't refer to the original generalization is that if the test maker wants to refer to the original generalization, he would explicitly say it, as in answer choice (A).

I may or may not be correct. Maybe I read too much into the construction of this question.

My initial problem with answer choice (D) was that I didn't quite see how the argument narrows the scope of the generalization?

I consider the generalization to be: "the person affected in the specified way by an action performed by someone else", and the final qualification to be: "if a word with the ending -ee refers to one party in a two-party transaction, it refers to the party at which the other party's action is directed"

For me, they are EXACTLY the same.

In this case, how can we say the qualification narrows the original generalization?

The argument structure is like:

1) a generalization

2) an example illegitimately broadens the scope of the generalization

3) no, no, no, this example is irrelevant, because it misinterprets the scope of the generalization. Actually, the scope is...

In retrospect, I can see that (D) doesn't mean that the argument narrows the scope of the original generalization. This is my own misinterpretation. (D) says "the generalization at issue". I think "at issue" indicates that there's a disagreement on the scope of the generalization raised by the counterexample. So "the generalization at issue" really refers to the scope-broadened generalization used by the counterexample rather than the original generalization.

I admit that being too picky about the word choice of "narrows" in answer choice (D) made me ignore one horrible factual mistake in (E):

(Don't argue the words: "replacing" and "spurious")

1) It's not "the notion of being affected in the specified way by an action" but "the notion of being affected in the specified way by an action performed by someone else."

In this sense, (E) doesn't describe the way this argument handled the counterexample. It's absolutely wrong.

Yes! I have the same problem

This is very helpful! Thank you'

I have the same question here

Hi JY could you do a video explanation for Question 3?

Fake questions are just used to train your mind when you exhausted almost everything, scored high, but were somehow intimidated by new questions for no reason. It's nothing about your theory of real LSAT questions but the nuances of your mentality, which I think could only be resolved by facing something new. Even though the questions are faked, your solid master of the patterns of LSAT won't let you be misled by the faked questions. All you need to do is to win the mental battle.

I understand the intimidation factor you mean. I'd suggest to try Princeton LSAT Workout and Princeton LSAT Logic Games Workout. I will do some fake new LGs before this Feb's test, just to keep me in a good shape when facing new games.

Typically there won't be an argument in MBT or MSS questions. For argument parts questions, you need to figure out the logic structure. But don't assume them to be perfect. I can see your point to put comas around the word perfect. Being critical is crucial but trying to find flaws in every stimulus will probably be counterproductive. In another word, don't be hypercritical.