[Ended] June Study Group | PT 73 | Sat. April 22nd at 5pm EST

nessa.k13.0

I hope you had a good break. Now it's time to get back to work. PT 73's up!

PT 73 Review on Saturday, April 22nd at 5PM ET

Try this first---- https://www.gotomeeting.com/ and then enter the code 617-377-325

Click here to join this conversation: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/617377325

Please click the link and comment if you plan on participating.

You can also dial in to the BR call by using your phone.
United States: +1 (872) 240-3212
Access Code: 617-377-325

The Full Schedule

And if you’d like to see the full schedule for upcoming sessions, here it is:
https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=aWw1aWEzYTRkbWdoaDZsa3U3YjBsaDBlZDBAZ3JvdXAuY2FsZW5kYXIuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbQ

Note:

• For everyone: take the PT under timed conditions; BR as you are able on your own; then join us for all or part of the call—everyone is welcome.
  
• Note: For the purposes of the call, we like to check our group blind review score together at the very end of the call So at least don't say ... "No guys, really, it's D, I checked it.” KEEP THE CORRECT ANSWER TO YOURSELF. Win the argument with your reasoning.
  
• These groups work best when folks from ALL stages of prep and with all different goals join in! Not just for "super-preppers" and definitely not just for the casual LSATer (does such a person exist?).
  
• The only expectation anyone has for these calls is for you to have fun and ask questions as you desire. We are just a bunch of LSAT lovers who gather via GoToMeeting and intellectually slaughter each test.

nessa.k13.0

@extramedium @dml277 @BinghamtonDave @SherryS1 @aimhigher @leannasamson @Omed_OvO @cm214998 @nanchito @"Lauren L" @Emely.Moreta @"el chucho" @jgsisco @Sharmetz @877blessed @mnrahall @jennagould60 @Citygirl @aaronmorris222 @bswise2 @KWoulf13 @mckenzieleanne10 @hhhiser_06 @DinnerAtSix @couchifer @poohbear @smartaone2 @red_ambrosia @crp9ce @DiligenFxy0628 @karen.sov @spbarry @cfield.3 @JustDoIt @lawgikal @TheMikey @justicedst @bbutler @Mitzyyyy @AlexandriaD @"Burt Macklin" @"adore-no" @"nessa.k13.0" @twssmith @gaandrsn @RafaelBernard @CinnamonTea @TheMikey @sheridan9194 @jimmyrivera201 @meg321go @carlistics @draj0623 @jcorine26 @caitieadams @ppcoelho1 @Gladiator_2015 @sunnyvictoria0610 @yamameerzada484 @bruingirl1205 @emilyxiong315 @lawschoolstuff16 @joneselisabethpenn @gaandrsn @tsan220 @Grace... @dantlee14 @dannyshaw @"Not Ralph Nader" @etphonehome @"subi rami" @cetienn2 @zyahya @Connor180 @Walliums @canadalegalbiz @jeremybentham @HennaC15 @helentang02 @imekahel @sacksj18 @Mattglandry @trxdsd91 @jknauf @hernandk @far_k_hd @BenjiM123 @morganclarke @phelanj75 @d_villa @5everLSATing @mo.sheikh @zyahya @cetienn2 @"subi rami" @etphonehome @rachaels @"Michelle Juma" @rpffj1213, @alex.e92, @McLovinLSAT, @bswise2, @corgimeister, @BryantFu @leslieh327, @etphonehome, @evan3826 @danielznelson @cskent329 @"jw316 TLS" @BenjaminSF @amedley88 @dcdcdcdcdc @"maple sarap" @amedley88 @poohbear @cvo1 @LsatChic @hylycdi! @"Ann Marie" @matty-san

nessa.k13.0

Hey yall I'm having issues with GTM. It won't let me sign in. I'll post a link for discord in a sec if this problem continues till 5:05

twssmith

I can start it if you want

twssmith

Check to see if you can join it - got it running

nessa.k13.0

Sweet! Thanks @twssmith

JohnFish

@"nessa.k13.0" Is it working? Thanks!

CinnamonTea

Can't make today after all unfortunately. Talk to y'all next week

nessa.k13.0

@JohnnyFish yup! Join us!

It's all good @CinnamonTea talk to ya next week!

twssmith

Hey @JustDoIt @dml277 @CinnamonTea @"nessa.k13.0"

Check out JY's explanation on PT73, S2, Q20 - lol - it is exactly what we were talking about negating the qualifiers
(Thanks Jordan

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-2-question-20/

[Edited to say the following are JY's comments written in his explanation]

Think about the grammar.

In terms of grammar, (A) is subject dense and (E) is predicate dense. In other words, the subject of (A) is heavily modified whereas the predicate of (E) is heavily modified.

The main subject of (A) is farmers. All farmers? No. It zooms in onto a subset of all farmers called farmers in the region. All of those? No. It further zooms in onto a subset of all farmers in the region who abandon the use of chemical fertilizers. All of those? No. It further zooms into a subset of those called "most". Okay, now that we've finally got the right zoom level, those farmers, what about them? What's the predicate? Well, just that they will periodically grow alfalfa.

Contrast that with (E). The subject is "some farmers in the region". In other words, at least one farmer in the region. What about them? (What's the predicate?) It's complicated. It's a conditional predicate. We're saying for at least one farmer in the region, the follow is true: if they grow green-manure crops, then they abandon the use of chemical fertilizers. In other words - remember your lawgic / translation lessons - their growing green-manure crops depends on their abandoning their use of chemical fertilizers.

Can you negate this statement?

When I say for some people, X is true, the negation of that is for no person is X true. (Review this lesson.) And that means for all persons, X is not true. (No dogs like to eat salmon = all dogs do not like to eat salmon.) So apply that here. For no farmer in the region is growing green-manure crops dependent on their abandoning use of chemical fertilizers. That means for all farmers in the region, not[growing green-manure crops dependent on their abandoning use of chemical fertilizers]. Remember how to negation conditional statements? Negated, the statement is that growing green-manure crops can happen alongside with not abandoning (that means continuing to use) chemical fertilizers. For all farmers in the region, that's true.

dml277

@twssmith Thanks Tyler!

twssmith

@dml277 We did great on the call!! Figured it out together:) Nice to have confirmation!

nessa.k13.0

Thanks for posting the explanation and link @twssmith !