Recent Comments

I think you mean the opposite?

Is it just me or is the tutor completely wrong here? The stimulus doesn't talk about the two sides being reasonable and fair. It talks about the ONE Judge, who was on the panel, as being reasonable and fair. The assumption is that because the whole panel was reasonable, all its members are also reasonable. Or am I missing something?

I feel like the explanation is missing

Hello, I am taking the August 2024 LSAT: anyone want to be study buddies?

saracanas28 2 hours ago
on Chain

This confused me... We spent the last few lessons learning these rules and none of them were used in this video. He basically was negating based on his understanding of the statement which makes sense but the whole point of learning the rules was so that we wouldn't really on our understanding of statements and instead rely on the "mechanistic" method. Not sure why we wouldn't learn how to chain using those rules/method. The first lessons were great just wished it would have been applied to this video too! Thanks:)

B: provide a reasonable treatment for the false positive children?

I totally understand the explanation for the correct answer, but damn 3/5 difficulty, definetly think this took wayyyy more "thinking" that most MSS questions.

Update, after all that, I found another explanation that references lines 55-58, which say that impartiality results from the deliberation of informed, opinionated, and curious people. Mass media coverage could potentially increase those 3 qualities and thereby improve court cases. But sheesh

economy of verbosity

I thought only if was a necessary indicator? #help

This one was supposed to be easy but it took me forever

i recognized the flaw very clearly but i just don't understand how the answer choices convey the same flaw.

5 is definitely and demonstrably lame lol

I was between C and D and picked D even though the author said you shouldn’t just throw out a method (ie. voir dire) willy nilly without coming up with an alternative solution to replace it. So that’ll show me to pick answers I know I have a problem with.

But I also still have a problem with C, even though I now would pick it after POE. I feel like C is a bit of circular reasoning... It’s saying that mass media coverage could have the potential benefit of strengthening juries’ decision processes in light of the current prevalence of mass media coverage. The way I read that is that the reason or at least one reason (kind of feels like the only reason?) that mass media coverage could benefit us is because mass media coverage already exists. Well, what if there weren’t already mass media coverage, hypothetically? Would it be a benefit to initiate it? I do kind of get/agree with the pragmatism that since it does exist (ignoring my hypothetical), we should acknowledge it so we can deal with it more effectively. But the benefit is in bolstering a jury's representation of the community it’s meant to serve, not about any particular element of that representation. To me it’s like saying the jury shouldn’t discount people with X attribute because the greater community has a lot of that X attribute, so therefore it’s beneficial to court cases for that X attribute to exist in the community in the first place. As opposed to it being beneficial for juries to include that X attribute (in order to reflect the community). I’m not sure it’s any more or less beneficial to the judicial process for a community to have any one attribute or another. But the way I’m reading it, D is saying that it’s beneficial for X attribute (mass media coverage) to exist in general, so it feels circular.

Then again, like carania pointed out, I guess it’s better to choose vague and shoddy over definitely wrong. But still, can anyone speak to this seeming circularity? Am I wrong about that? #help

I think this question tried to bog you down with details about plants. The main point is that the people in the stimulus were built different, an assertion that's supported by the details we're given about plants and cultivating them. B is the only answer choice that alludes to this and that's why it's right.

I'm a bit lost. What is an example of a subject that contains a noun and a verb?

In the previous lesson diagrams it explained the subject containing a noun but in this diagram it explains that the subject must contain a noun and can contain a verb.

This one tripped me up because of the "dark brown color" in E. Per the stimulus, "the best compost ... is dark brown in color." Yet the answer is saying that dark brown AND "a strong ammonia smell" makes compost bad. I understand why having a strong ammonia smell is bad, but I'm confused about why, in a conjunction, the bad characteristic of the strong ammonia smell overpowers the good characteristic of the dark brown color.

I'm loving Kevin's explanation! Hope we see more of him.

Just trying to wrap my head around these concepts. Are all clauses sentences and all sentences are clauses? #help

how is unique biconditional whattt

I agree, at a stoplight a car in front of you might take a right turn at a red light and you might move up so speed at stoplights is not zero. I guess we just have to submit to the idea of "yeah I knew what he meant with the analogy, but my smartass knows the analogy is not perfect"

I can see the error I made from misreading the answer choice but I don't think someone who is truly confused about this question would gain any value from watching this explanation. I know you're working on adding a review from JY but maybe a different recording would be better in the interim.