Open Q&A (Intermediate) with Nate

How's going, how's your studying going, how's it feel being back in the States?

Yeah, of course, good. Two, three hours isn't bad, right?

Right.

Yeah.

So crazy. But you end up getting the result in the case. Huh? Did you end up getting a result in the case?

That's how India works.

Yeah, I guess that makes sense.

Really?

In India. Wow. I'm so sorry.

Wow.

Yeah. Maybe you should write out autobiography one day so people can read your story. Sounds really interesting. I'm sure there's a lot more of that.

Of course. Wow.

Yeah.

Yeah.

That's a lot, really. Wow. that's crazy that's how it works in India make sure you're safe and healthy that's the most important thing here that's pretty frightening yeah yeah because I'm used to this from 4th grade or 5th grade yeah it doesn't matter to me yeah right right write your book one day I'll definitely read it send it over to me when you're done yeah sure yeah let me let me pause this right here for seven minutes I get this class started so hi everyone as always I'm Nate this is going to be the LSAT Max live class which is open Q&A open question answers so just in general keep yourself on mute but just unmute yourself any time after question in fact because today's specifically about you're asking questions what we'll do here is just anyone has a question put in the chat right now or when I'm finished here in a second I'll just go on unmute and ask your question just make

30, leave yourself on mute when you're not talking and we'll just answer everyone's questions one by one. We want to say hello to everyone who's joined us.

I was just talking to you regularly there for second, we have Yousra, Muhammad, and Harry. Sorry, to anyone who mispronounced in their name and yeah, we'll just go ahead and open the floor.

If no one has any questions, I will just teach what I think is important, but if not, wait, that already was, if not.

If everyone, if anyone has questions, ask the question, I'll answer it, if not, I'll teach anything. that was all kind of going on in circles.

Yeah, thanks so much Yousra. Thanks so much. Hello to ISO and 191 who just joined us as well. Thanks for joining us.

So yeah, just open it up to the floor, give it a second and see if anyone has any questions.

Okay. We got our first question, I'm just going to put a note here. question one. I do have a question.

I'm stuck at 148 and the only thing I'm literally getting wrong is hard level for our questions and I don't know how to fix it.

I need general tips. Yes, absolutely. Can you elaborate a bit on what is your strategy as you do logical reasoning questions?

start there because I think that's the clearest one to make straight forward in progress 10. Can you tell me a bit about what you're doing so I can build on that?

Just because I need to hear a little bit more before I can give you any advice. What do you usually do when you do a logical reasoning question?

can unmute and just talk if you want. Okay, for a large reason, I read the question and try to understand fully, I try to predict as best I can, but sometimes that's hard to do and I'm going to answer, limiting ones that are completely wrong.

Yeah, and can you tell me little bit about what you do when you're reading a logical reasoning? That's the most important thing.

And we're going to build on what you normally do. Usually, I'm stuck between two answers and I always manage to pick the one that's wrong.

Of course, that happens, but we can pick that. Just really quickly, okay, I'm reading, I try identify the conclusions and the premises and then what do you do from there?

That's the big step, I think we're going to straight to that step right now. User is saying step one.

and on logical reasoning, then I go on to the question and say, um, yeah, um, I guess I mean, okay, yeah, let's build on that then, perfect.

So here's what I want to do. going to add two steps to your logical reasoning. Here's what I want you to do every time on logical reasoning, and everyone else as well.

It's sort of a three or four step process. Step one is it an actual full argument? As you said, as in premises and conclusion?

Or is it just a set of facts? As in no conclusion, just premises? That's going to be a step on some of them don't actually give you a full argument.

They won't give you a conclusion. So if it is just a set of facts, it's probably going to be a must be true, it cannot be true, or a principle,

full question. I might as well. only not the early. I'm not sure. And then here you're going to have to make a deduction or a conclusion.

But that's the end of the line there. So the more interesting side is what do we do if it's a full argument?

If it is a full argument, we move on to this, I guess this is step one. This level is going to be step two.

If it's a full argument, I want you to understand, and a lot of people diagram like this, they diagram it like a vertical addition problem with premise either adding up to being the conclusion.

Once you understand what's actually being said at all. And then from there, you ask yourself, there's nothing about this level of step three.

Well, on to step three, it is, is the conclusion 100% supported by the fast? or the premises, or did they mess up?

Okay. Is this clear already so far? It's already similar to what you do. This sounds like it's similar to what you do already with maybe just the addition of, okay.

This is where the points are scored though, because this is sort of straightforward. This is where the real sort of money is made on the LSAT.

How do we know if they've messed up? What went wrong? Let's go deeper into that. I'm going to... Yeah, okay.

Here is what they're teaching on the LSAT. Here's what they're teaching on the LSAT. The LSAT is supposed to be, although I don't necessarily 100% agree, but at least get it.

It's supposed to be analogy to what we're going to do as lawyers and sort of by relation what we're going to do in law school.

What a lawyer does is you have your judge, and you have your courts, and you have your one side versus your other side, and you also have your jury.

What happened is before you go into courts, everyone has to do discovery and has to present all their evidence to the judge, and the judge decides what evidence goes in the evidence box.

Then, once we decide we start court and we bring that box of evidence into court, and the jury looks at it, the two sides look at it, and the judges look at it, and this is the only thing allowed in court, the only thing allowed in.

I think you probably heard this talk about this, it's usually supported, you say, I think I make the mistake of the inclusion of you to support it, and I don't know how to find the hole, it's exactly, exactly perfect.

Let me give you one more tip before we dive into that that's we're gonna work on right now about 90% of the time It is a bad conclusion.

So you should always assume it's bad and try to find what's wrong with it and not vice-versa So let's talk about what is supported and what is not supported You've probably heard on the LSAT that you're not allowed to bring in outside information.

This is literally what they mean in courts You have to put all the evidence in the box right in front of everyone.

You can't have any secret hidden evidence You can't have any hidden photograph to pull out the last minute. No, it's all got to be in the box You can't bring in outside information And so what do we do we do two things in courts?

You make your argument you say the evidence shows that my client is innocent and The other side will do the exact opposite thing the other side will say no The evidence shows your client is guilty In other words everyone is looking at the same piece of

evidence, but reaching different conclusions. So what we're doing on the outside in the same thing, you said to me, you diagram your arguments and you say, here's your premises, you identify your premises and here's your conclusion.

And what you're doing here, the premise is just the box of evidence in court. And you can only use these premises.

And the conclusion is what your side has, has found from that evidence. You have to do one of two things in court.

You have to both prove your side or you have to disprove the other side. And how do you do that?

Well, what you have to do is, you have to add up the evidence. So let's say piece of evidence number one is a photo from the crime scene, piece of evidence number two is Nate's fingerprints on the crime scene.

then a piece of evidence number three is Nate's testimony. And you can use that evidence to say, I see a picture of Nate at the crime scene in his fingerprints.

And I can say, Nate is guilty. And the other side can use that evidence to say no. Nate was trying to save the victim.

So Nate was at the crime scene when the person died. One side says that means Nate was guilty because he was there when he died.

The side says no. was just the first one on the scene trying to save him and give him CPR.

Is that making sense so far, user? Also, hello to Keeney who just joined us. Okay, great. So how do we do this and what do we need to do in court?

we have to prove the other side wrong when there can be diverging of opinions on the same bit of evidence.

So that's what we're doing on the LSAT. We're having our premises and we have our conclusion. And the rule is we have to have all...

You can only use evidence that is given in the court in the evidence box. In other words, you cannot bring in outside evidence.

Nothing can get in. It can only be the stuff. from the evidence box. And if you want to make your best possible conclusion, the other side's gonna say to you, well, how do you explain the fact that Nate's fingerprints were at the crime scene and say, okay, Nate's fingerprint was at the crime scene.

Yes, Nate was at the crime scene because he was touching everything and he was trying to save this person's life.

And so ideally, another ideal is not only does no outside information get in, but none of the piece of information that we've given us go unaddressed, none of them escape, but instead all are used in the conclusion.

What does this look like graphically? What I mean to say is this. Imagine they give me fact A, fact B, and fact C.

A perfect conclusion based on this is conclusion A, B, C. Which A, B, C, that's it. Every part of the conclusion is supported by facts.

It is air, height. There is nothing, there's not fact B that has gotten in, and fact A didn't escape.

What would a bad conclusion? looks like. If you give me facts, A, B, and C, and I come up with a conclusion, A, B, C, D.

If I look and I ask myself, okay, is this a perfectly supported conclusion that's supported 100% by the evidence?

I just go through one by one the conclusion, I see there's a conclusion about fact A, I have fact A, conclusion about fact B, I have fact B, conclusion about fact C, I have fact C, conclusion about fact D, is coming out of nowhere, somehow this has gotten in from the outside, this is not allowed, this is a flaw.

Anything new in this conclusion is a flaw. So that's actually step one. Here's what we're looking for. How did they mess up?

Step one, is there anything new in this conclusion? Is there any new concept in this conclusion? It's automatically a flaw.

Any new concept in this conclusion is automatically a flaw. That's what I always look for first. You can't have anything new in this conclusion.

You can't bring in any surprises that can be nothing new. Everything has to be perfectly supported by us. Here's something else they could do wrong.

Imagine they gave me facts, A, B, C, Z. And I think, okay, did they use every fact of inclusion?

I say yes to use A, yes to use B, yes to use C. They didn't seem to use Z.

Where did Z go? somehow escaped, this is not an airtight argument. went wrong here. That's step two. Step one, is there any new concept in the conclusion?

Step two, is there any unconsidered facts that we're not considering the conclusion? Or are there any sort of alternative or possibilities?

Step three, is this making sense so far? You start? We're going to try some questions right after this. The final step is, actually, is there

They're both, or is there neither? Let's take a look for one second of this last step, is there neither?

This is the rare chance it actually could be, if they've done neither, a new concept of inclusion, there's no unconscioner facts, and there's a perfect matchup of facts inclusion.

It actually could be the rare, valid conclusion, but this is very rare. You should always fight against this in case this happens.

In case you don't, in case you're like, oh, you know, this might be a valid conclusion. Fight against it.

Try to think, okay, maybe there's some other way I can poke a hole in this, because they're almost always wrong, or check the logical force, or strength, or certainty of the words.

So actually, that's going to be your step two, your last step, actually. If this is your step one, two, three, one of your logical reasoning questions.

Because I want you to do one more step, step four, re-read everything, especially when you're practicing on time, just for the power of the words, just for the power of the words.

As did they say must, did they say all, or did they say something weaker like should or could? And this makes a huge difference, as you're saying, to get up to the intermediate and hard questions, you have to notice this.

You cannot get this right unless you notice this stuff. It just makes sense so far, you start, and then we're going to try a question.

I see you start, and can premises be given that are just there to mislead? What do we do with those?

No, actually can't. At the most basic level, there's some rare exceptions to this, but there actually cannot be any premises that are there to mislead.

Because just like in court, everything in the evidence box is only allowed in. The reason the judge checks all the evidence before they let the evidence box in the court is because the judge has to make sure every piece of evidence is true.

correct. So the only stuff that gets into evidence is 100% true. And so that's what we assume on these logical reasoning questions is every piece of evidence has been checked by a judgment and we're told that it's 100% true.

All we have to do then, we have to ask, is there an exact perfect connection between the facts and the conclusion?

Or did they do something wrong? That's the biggest number one thing we have to ask. That's the biggest number one thing.

Let's take a look at some questions. just want to go straight to question and we'll take on someone else's question.

You sure I'm gonna try to pull up a question on logical reasoning that I think really illustrates this point but if you've seen this question before we can move on to a different one.

Can you hold for one second?

Oh, sorry. Can you put it in the chat?

Absolutely. I'm so sorry about that. No problem. I think you came into the late news. to the questions, no problem at all.

So you, sir, if you don't mind, have you seen this question before, is it too familiar? OK, can you read this question?

And tell me what the conclusion is. And tell me if every part of the conclusion, we're going to go step by step one by one.

Is there any new concept in the conclusion? And that's going to be our step one. Actually, wait I have says it's true.

OK, we're going try to go. We're going try to go in and illustrate this kind of point. OK, Yeah, let's take a look at this one.

Yeah, why don't we take a look at this one, you sure? What's the conclusion in every part of this conclusion supported by the facts?

You Yeah, suppressing information is incompatible with application of suppress or to promote their free flow of ideas. Great. Okay.

Is this now 100% supported by the facts? There's actually, that's actually a sub conclusion. one more conclusion. There's a very first line.

So, there's little tricky. We can take it one by one, but so in the end, it should not be entitled.

patent inventions and the sub conclusion is is suppressing info is incompatible with the obligation to promote ideas. our of knowledge, but if you retain the right to patent, you have a motive to suppress info.

Is there a perfect match up one to one of the facts in the conclusion? do they do wrong? And anyone can chime in as well.

else? Does anyone see any sort of mistake here between the facts and conclusion? Let's just start with this interior one.

Let's do this one first. And then we'll do the exterior one, which is this one. It's doing one by one.

Is there a perfect match up? And anyone can chime in here. Yeah, actually it's really, really very strict way.

I just take a look at one by one in other words. Suppressing information? We talked about that in the facts.

Incompatible, I don't see that in the facts, so that's something new. An obligation to promote the free flow of ideas.

Well, we did talk about the free flow of ideas, I didn't really write out everything very well, but it was the free flow of ideas, that was supported.

But the obligation, there's nothing in the facts about an obligation, and there's nothing in the facts about incompatible. Perfect, I just am really strict about it.

And if we do this in a really strict way, it's very, very easy to notice what the flaw is of.

If you try to think about it too hard, they'll convince you, sometimes it helps just be very, very strict.

Let's go on to step two. Step one, these are definitely flaws. We don't know if it's incompatible, we don't know if there's an obligation.

Step two, is there any facts that we're not? I'm addressed. In the facts, we actually talked about how universities have the motive to suppress information, but we didn't bring up motives in the conclusion.

So that's another thing. You didn't refer to the motive, the facts about the motive in the conclusion. Yeah, Joseph nailed it.

Just because they have the motive to do something doesn't mean they will do something. Exactly right. Joseph. Exactly right.

A key need and use her as well. Exactly right. Exactly right. So in this case, they're actually doing both.

And if they're doing both, what usually means is that they're assuming the assumption if you're doing both is that new concept in the conclusion is somehow related to.

the unconsidered or lost fact. In other words, the flaw as for at least this interior argument is that the obligation or the obligation is incompatible with a motive, so I should probably elaborate, the obligation for the free flow of ideas is incompatible with a motive to suppress.

Or, as Joseph more succinctly puts, if you have the motive to do something, it is incompatible with your obligation or that you will act on that motive.

Actually, we need to bring in the final view of this argument. It's that now, it's every part of this final conclusion supported.

Universities should not be entitled to patents. Well, we did talk about patents and should not be entitled. It's kind of a new comment.

concept, and the idea here is you should not be entitled to bringing in those other two facts. Do you have access to anything that gives you a motive that goes contrary to your obligations?

I know we picked one maybe that had too many conclusions and sub-conclusions, but you already see the easier ones perhaps.

So all I want you to do is exclusively look at an exact match up between facts and conclusions. Let's see if can find an answer choice that matches that.

Does any of these reference this idea, and I can bring everything in here so I can see more, that if you have a motive to do something, you should not have access to it or it immediately undermines your obligations.

Does any of these even mention motives at all? Yeah, it's just D. If you have the motive, you will act on, yeah.

Or at least, it's not even will, you occasionally act on, yeah. Yeah, great. Okay. I'm going pause this there.

We've taken up a lot of time with that one question. a really, really good deeper in some other session.

if you want to take a look at that or start a tutoring session, or go a bit deeper because just practicing this, especially with really specific examples, very helpful.

Okay, I just got to give you some other questions. Thank you so much, you sir. Let me take a look.

going to scroll back from the top to get a bunch of questions. So for one, yet, we're losing cause and effecting correlation confusion.

How to differentiate? Okay, let's talk about I'm bottom. bottom. Okay. You just have to watch for this every single time.

Oops. like I was saying to use for a. We have to always assume that they're doing this wrong. So just always assume that it's wrong.

90% of the time it's going to be wrong. And so here's what I mean by that. They're always going to try to trick you the entire else that's all about trying to trick you.

Can't see me zoom in where I want to go here. A correlation versus causation. I actually fold this into the concept of my opinion with logical forks.

If they say two things happened or happen at the same time. That doesn't mean anything to me. Unless they specifically tell me else at the very, very strict test.

You have to use the exact correct words and in fact tying this back into what you'll do as a lawyer and in law school.

So much of being a lawyer is statutory and contract interpretation. You have to read the exact words of a statute.

And there's a huge difference between a statute that says you may blah blah blah versus you must blah blah blah.

And they're testing you this on the testing this testing you on this on the LSAT. So they just tell me two things happen at the same time.

That's not enough. That's not the same thing as to say one caused or was the results. Or one thing led to the other or something happened because of something else.

This is a big thing you have to do for your whole life as a lawyer. Did the contracts explicitly allow this?

Or did it not talk about it all? For example, on the bar there's a bar question. We teach the bar here at Test Max else to teach the bar.

And they had a story of A person was on a boat, and they shot off fireworks at the firework.

And people were watching from the shore, and this lady got hurt, her husband got hurt while running the helper.

The statute said, if you shoot off fireworks from the ground, you must be 400 feet away from any people.

And the boat he shot the fireworks from was only 350 feet away from the people. So the question was, did he violate the statute?

Did he break any laws here? And in fact, he broke no laws, because the statute only says fireworks shot off from the ground and not fireworks shot off the boats.

So he broke no laws, and if you're not really strict about language, your client would have been guilty here, but instead he was guilty.

actually very strictly innocent. that's what the LSAT says to you. So for correlation and causation, she always assumes it's only correlation unless they explicitly say something caused something or was a result of something else or led to or is because something else.

If it happened at the same time or two things have happened, you should always assume it's only correlation unless they tell us it's causation.

Is that any concerns for you, Regu? Yes. Okay, great. Always be very strict. Always assume they're trying to trick you.

Always assume that they're wrong. Just always assume they're wrong. Okay, let me go on to another question. Harry's asking a question about a different service.

Harry, I can only answer questions on LSAT Max. I can only recommend on LSAT Max I love all of our methods are great.

Stick with LSAT Max. Also, there's a team who's joined us and Sonya. Any question you have, Sonya, just put it in the chat, same with but teama, Akini.

Law hub is a different set of questions from what we have in the practice of a question, I'll set maps.

Can you set a message to LSAT, M.A support? Anything to do with the app or the program itself, I just won't really have that information.

That's a really good question. Okay, that's all the questions we have so far. Perfect. I actually got to do the questions.

thought. Any more questions for anyone? Or any questions on those questions? Or should we go deeper into the cause and effect one?

Or should we go deeper into that exact matchup of facts and conclusion? That was a really important one.

Should I, I suppose I put it on the chat. Yeah, I'm going to say it, perfect.

Yeah, perfect. Great question. Principal questions, principal questions are like those ASOPs table. going to let you know if you're going to approach the question now.

I don't know if they still teach us, but I'm just way too old now.

Okay. Also hello to Leila, who's just on this. Sorry if I'm pronouncing anyone's name is wrong. I'm going to put this like principle.

Cause I don't know. If that's an L E or an A L. So just if anyone knows, let me know.

What do we do in a principle question and a principle question is asking it actually asking us. About that.

So what is the moral of the story? I think it's principle with an L E, not sure. So here's what I want you to do.

want you to two anticipations. Especially if you're doing that on time. I want you to make one. Anticipation. That is very broad.

And vague and like all encompassing. just like ASOPs fables. And then I want you to make one that's very specific.

It only applies here to this story. And it brings in every single detail. Does anyone remember any of those ASOPs fables that you want to bring?

No, it's a long time ago. Okay. There's one that was the tortoise and the hairdoise. Does anyone remember that?

There was a rabbit racing a turtle. Yes, I do. Okay. the turtle kept running the whole time and the rabbit took a nap and thought he would easily beat the turtle.

I would have won, but he said he took like three naps or something even and lost the race. What would be your anticipation of the moral?

And can you. Give me two anticipations. Can you give me a really specific one and a really broad one, a specific one that brings in every fast and broad one that tells us just the moral of the story there.

So the rabbit was a much faster runner and the turtle was much slower runner, but the turtle by continuing to go and never stopping won the race while the rabbit by stopping and getting to arrogance and taking naps lost the race.

There are principles there. There's something we can learn there. What's the moral there?

That was exactly right. Slow and steady wins the race. And just this guy down the chat, exactly. Can you give me a new anticipation, a new principle that brings in every single fact from that that you remember from that story as much as possibly can and makes it a really, really specific principle that only applies in this one situation.

and it's tricky.

Yeah, but I'm going bring it even more fast. Bring it every single fact. If you are a rabbit running a race against a turtle and you are arrogant and the turtle is not lazy, you should not underestimate your opponent.

Sorry my one note closed there. You should not underestimate your opponent and you should not nap and you should keep going until you win and don't celebrate early.

So we can do a one line version or we can do like a 10 sentence version. And the reason we want to anticipate this is because we don't know where on the spectrum the answer choices will be.

It could be all the way over here on the spectrum. It could be all the way over here or there could be somewhere in the middle.

And to be ready for any of them on the spectrum, we might want to anticipate anyone on the spectrum.

So let's take a look at answer. A question right now, let's see if we can make two anticipations. One that is just a really, really broad vague moral of the story, and one that's specifically only applicable here.

And then they'll check the answer to us and just see which one they did. Let's try this one. No, that one already has a point to it.

Try different. The what? What would be a principle here for that counter argument? What principle are they using?

Yeah, what is our counter argument here is? This criticism is in principle unwind. quarantined because the limited number of masterpieces makes wider distribution of them impractical What is that their counter argument?

What is this counter arguments person's principle? That's the question actually Joseph is saying that the masterpiece should be fully appreciated sure Harry is saying too much create our work is overlooked sure i'm going make a really really broad one I'm like a really really broad one Critic criticism is unwarranted if There is any reason to To it this way They're saying your criticism is unwarranted because xyz Well, maybe our broad principle is just any criticism is unwarranted if there's any good reason to do it this way or or any good reason

defeats all crazy. Most people say it's a bad idea for me to go to bed at 5 p.m. But I have a good reason and it's that I like to so that's going to defeat all criticism.

Some people tell me it's a bad idea for me to never drink any water but I like the taste of beer, I don't like water, I have a good reason, it's going to defeat all the criticism.

That's a really broad principle here. What's a really specific principle bringing in all the facts, every single fact. Last sentence try to use every sentence, try to use every sentence, try to use every single fact.

Try to use every single fact.

Defeats all criticism, never press my handwriting. about that for any good reason defeats all criticism. How about a really specific anticipation that if you are criticizing the idea of hanging artwork in a huge metropolitan museum, your criticism is in principle unwarranted because wider distribution of one thing is impractical and to appreciate art it has to be seen alongside other works, literally bringing in every single part of the stimulus.

Because we don't know how broad or how their answer choice is going to be and so let's see if we find one that matches.

Let's see if we find one that matches. If we find any that matches anyway. you We never know how broad and vague or how specific and detailed the answer is going to be, so we have to kind of notice everything.

Yeah, we got a couple of lectures coming in, C and D. And we have question here about the letter A, just really briefly, we're going to look at the letter A at the end as well.

want to see everything here. There's a really interesting thing on the LSAT, which I'm trying to be the hardest part of the whole LSAT, to me the most frustrating part of the whole LSAT.

There's no necessarily really, really right answer about this. It doesn't always matter. But going into logical reasoning questions. We always want to ask ourselves, is there any new concept in the conclusion?

That's specifically what we want to ask ourselves. And sometimes the answer to choices and the conclusion will use words that I'm never sure is the same concept or a new concept.

So, looking at the first two sentences, some critics claim that it's unfair blah, blah, Okay. When they say this criticism, they're specifically referring to, that's not a new concept, right?

They're specifically referring to this idea of what some critics are claiming. So, they're using a new word for the same concept.

This is the biggest thing to me on the outside. Is it the same concept or is it a new concept?

Is it just a new word for the same concept or synonym for the concept or is it the same concept?

If some critics are claiming one thing and then refer to that claim as am I not technically being criticism?

It's just something that critics are claiming. The next sentence is calling that criticism, is that the same concept or is that a new concept?

To me, that's probably the same concept, and I'll keep reading. I don't think that's anything new. We have to though make sure every single part matches up perfectly, and looking at letter A, in providing facilities to the public, the goal should be to ensure that as many as possible of those people who could benefit from the facilities are able to do so.

Is the word benefits brought up in the passage, or is it the concept of benefiting from something brought up in the passage, or is that a new concept?

We always have to see if it's a new concept, or if it's just a synonym for the same thing they brought up.

The word benefit is not in the passage, but there might be that same concept in the passage. This is the biggest question on the whole L set.

Great. Yeah, I, the outside is designed to trick you. So the stimulus is never going to tell us exactly what we want, unfortunately.

It's going to give us exactly all that we need to pass the LSAT, in in real life, I would consider the LSAT to be like a somewhat unfair and tricky test.

Unfair in the sense that they're purposefully doing this, but you can beat it, but I don't like what they do.

They just do it on purpose and they're just testing you on being tricked. That is what we need to be prepared for for being a lawyer.

So in some ways, that's the right thing for them to do, but it's just tricky. The LSAT will always use new words for the same

concept to try to trick you. have to not be tricked. If we're going to ensure the people if anything and providing facilities to the public, people can benefit from the facilities.

I believe that's the same concept as some critics claim that it's unfair to house works of arts where people already have access to the work as in when you provide facilities to house something for the public.

Other people are not benefiting and that's the same concept as not having access to those facilities.

I'm saying be strict about the concepts but not the words. Thank you. Yeah, absolutely. a very, that's the trickiest as you get better and better and better at the LSAT.

That's like the final boss. Like if this was a video game, that's like the final boss of the LSAT.

If you're asking this question now, it's great. That means you're reaching the final boss. That's what you have to do.

So let's take a look at these final answer choices one more time, and we have C and D. I'm going remind ourselves of our anticipations, our two anticipations were.

I think our two anticipations were. Oh, any good reason defeats all criticism. And this specific criticism is unwarranted for reason A and reason B, which was not, there's only a certain number of them.

And if a masterpiece is fully appreciated, to be around other pieces of arts. Looking at C, it is unreasonable to enforce a redistribution of social good that involves depriving some members of society of these goods in our supply others.

This is similar. But I want something about criticism being disputed or being unwarranted. So I want to hold this.

I think it's leaving out something that we put in both our vague and our specific anticipation. The principle was that the criticism is unwarranted.

The counter argument was that the criticism was unwarranted. We don't want to forget that part of the counter argument.

And then D, for it to be reasonable to criticize an arrangement as unfair, there must be a more equitable arrangement that is practically attainable.

That's very very similar to this. I would say as between, if we were to make like a range from this very, very broad one to this very, very specific one, I would actually put that like right here.

It's saying, we said any good reason defeats all criticism, they're saying, criticism is unreasonable, unless. Unless there's another way to do it.

As in, any other way to do it defeats all criticism. Any other way to do it. Yeah, good. Any other questions?

Yeah, absolutely. that's the same concept that believes. Yeah, that's the same concept. Yeah, exactly. And so they use the word benefit, they use the word access to facilities and use the word equitable to mean all the same thing.

Which is what they do all the time on the LSAT. You have to attach that you have to notice that in the long run.

You'll do that right away, but in the long run. Long run. So always watch for the concepts being the same.

Let's start one more of these questions. don't have time to finish it. Let's take a look at one more and see if can just at least come up with.

And just go ahead and put it directly in the chat. Read this, put directly in the chat, any anticipation and put directly in the chat.

Watch your answer choices and we'll finish on this one. I would say it's in the past century North America.

It has shifted its main energy source from what the cold involved law is logical to conclude in the future.

The main energy source will be purely hydrogen. I would say if you take one step and your final step and your final goal must be that exact same path forever.

That's kind of a really broad anticipation. Your first step predicts your final goal. A really, really specific one is if you're upgrading your energy from one thing to the next, and every single time you always have more hydrogen and less carbon, then that means in the future you will completely reach that goal and have zero carbon and more only hydrogen.

You see how there's one really broad and really specific anticipation? any of these match that? No. Put your answer in the span, put in Y, which anticipation does it seem closer to whatever answer choice you do?

it seem more broad or more specific or kind of in the middle? I guess my big takeaway here is all the principle is describing what's happening, and we can anticipate describing it in very, very broad terms or very broad brush strokes, or with very, very fine detail.

If you see an answer choice, go ahead and put in the chat, which one it is, also put in Y, which intonation of ours is a closer to?

you. We'll give everyone about one more minute here. Okay, get your final answer then. And finally, yep, it is D.

There's a little bit closer to our second anticipation, it brings in a lot of details every step makes smaller.

We have one final question at the buzzer, I do like blind review, I encourage blind review, it's a good idea, it helps you determine whether you're having a skill issue or a timing issue.

Yeah, thank you everyone for your time, have a good rest of day and have a good studying or whatever happy studying, good luck on your offsets and have a good rest of whatever it is there's thanks everyone, thanks for joining.