• Mike,
    There are a few conditional phrases that I am having trouble with:
    1. Without: I’ve seen this a few times and I am not even certain in can be thought of conditionally. If so, I understand it to work like this- “Without A, B happens” A>B, i.e., without introduces sufficiency and you negate the sufficient condition
    2. Never: “I never dance alone” A>D i.e., “never” introduces ne…Read More

  • Mike,
    Now having taken a lot of practice tests, I have seen some weird LR questions stems that don’t fit nicely into the several categories in the Trainer. I’ve been able to make “in-game” calls about what it is asking me to do (I feel I’ve been right most of the time), but it takes more time than it should and leaves an unacceptable amount of uncertainty.
    So, here’s some of the non-…Read More

  • I get most= some non-zero number greater than 50% and some= a non-zero number. But what does “almost” mean?
    I can’t find the question that stumped me, but I thought that word’s LSAT meaning to be crucial.


  • Mike,
    In the LSAT Trainer on pg. 440 when discussing I.D. the role questions, you list several different roles that exist in an argument. While you do say that “the wording might be different,” the word “premise” is not listed there. So, in terms of formal LSAT arguments, what is a premise?
    An example of a question where this becomes crucial is Q54.2.17. I managed to get the answer…Read More

  • Dear Mike,
    I am now deep in the Trainer (and it’s excellent, but I digress) and I was working on Reading Comp Set 1 Drill where I ran into a question that I 100% thought I got right, and I got it wrong. Specifically, PT53, S4, Q14: I wasn’t super happy with D (“contrast the legal theories of past eras…”) but that’s what I put because it was reasonable and because I had eliminated all…Read More

  • podelljacob became a registered member 5 years ago