I've been really looking into sufficient/necessary flaws lately. A particularly difficult way in which the test writers described the flaw appears on PT A section4question 20.
... I am stumped by the question PT44-S4-Q7, and the ... following is the question:
>
> ** ... ://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-44-section-4-question-07/
>
& ... the model when explain the question?
> Besides, if ...
... I am stumped by the question PT44-S4-Q7, and the ... following is the question:
> >
& ... ://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-44-section-4-question-07/
> > < ... the model when explain the question?
> > Besides, ...
Here is a _very_ partial list of correlation-causation flaws:
PT20.S1.Q10 (★★★), PT20.S4.Q14 (★★★), PT30.S2.Q25 (★★★★), PT31.S2.Q9 (★★★★), PT64.S1.Q5 (★), PT65.S1.Q8 (★), PT66.S4.Q25(★★★)
I have one for red herring:
PT 67-4-21: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-67-section-4-question-21/
"It does not address the neighbor's claim that pesticides used by the farmer are spreading onto her land"
... it was the first section. I felt like the ... was stuck on 1 question in the last game ... on a roll until question11 when my proctor interrupted ... section.
During LR when I was on question11, ... to bring it up during section 3, question11.