I feel silly for getting this two star flaw question wrong in timed and in BR lol. I actually pre-phrased both answers which is why I found this one so difficult.
When I read the stimulus the first issue I noted was that we have no context ...
... accident, that PT 26 S1 Game 2 and PT 81 S4 Game 2 ... because I had randomly done PT 26 S1 game 2 as ... a warmup LG before taking PT 81 today. They did ask ...
For example, in PT 93, JY explains that the ... other in/out games. In PT 61, I tried applying the ... a conditional relationship similar to PT 93 is only when there ...
I'm trying to identify flaws. is PT 56 S3 Q10 an equivocation flaw; can you use more than a word but a concept in this type of flaw?
Is PT 52 S3 Q4 a false appeal flaw?
Is PT 54 S4 Q16 an implication flaw ?
thanks
The LSAT Geeks from Manhattan are awesome in LR explanations. Another great source for LR explanations (and sorry for hiajcking your thread) is LSATHACKS. http://lsathacks.com/explanations/. Free explanations from PT62 to 72
Thanks so much for the encouragement @blah170blah !!
@nicole.hopkins I should really try the BR group. I actually took PT62 a few weeks ago - should I just come to the review anyway and look at questions that I wasn't comfortable with??
-Review videos on validity and some/most relationships
-Fool proof games from PT62
-Take and BR PTs 1, 50 and 63
-Drill one RC science and one older LG each day
... to 5.
For instance PT 76 LG section has an ... , 5 and 3 respectively. PT62 has an LG section rating ... , 5 and 2 respectively. PT B has an LG section ...