This is confusing because I thought that N going in center 1 does NOT mean N will go in center 2. In other words if 2 then 1, if I put an item in 1 doesn’t meant the item will go in 2.
Freaked out when I saw this at first, but then decided to just intuitively work through the answer choices and it was by far the shortest and easiest game on the test for me. I think this is one of the rare games where trying to diagram is actually not what you want to do. I just looked at the rankings of each employee and thought about what was and wasn't possible for each question.
Great video! I agree, the reginal plan is a much better option. The increased prices is definitely a danger zone to stay away from, when running a business, but the other plan is much worse, as well as it comes with many unknowns, and many gambles, which could risk all of your company with little to no return. So, the national plan would not increse profits, or ensure long term financial stability, where the regional plan would definitely provide the business with those returns.
Seven years later, but I have been looking at these interesting problems. A helpful tip is in the presentation above, where the two possibilities NFNFNF and FNFNFN are spelled out. I think I would have added to that the clarifying point (if I am correct) that W can never serve as a "substitute" for one or the other, but rather moves everything over to the right (like the spacebar on a keyboard). In other words if somewhere in the middle of our sequence the articles required are NFN and W is placed after that first N, the sequence is now NWFN, not NWN. But I also wonder if the deductions are complete. I could be wrong, but my suspicion is that , because of at least two rules, Y can never occupy any space less than 4 (I could be so wrong about this, but at the moment this is where I am at). Also, I would not use ">" to stand for "earlier than." Never seen that and it is confusing since in math it means of course "greater than" - the opposite of what is meant here once the sequence (numbered 1 through 7) is laid out.
He’s right about scholarships through scoring 166 and above. I want to see proof of LSAT Max being the number one rated ( BluePrint appears to be higher ). Next show me the average increase for LSAT Max is 17 points for their students
Can you name one place that Blueprint is ranked #1 that is not a paid placement on an affiliate site? Bringing new meaning to "the best LSAT prep course money can buy"!
Here is the information on our 18-point score increase: testmaxprep.com/lsat/score-increase Make sure you read the fine print when you compare to Blueprint's 15-point score increase that is based on the following: "The score increase study was conducted in the spring of 2022 and included all qualifying students in Blueprint Live Course held from July-September 2021. To show earnest engagement with the program and be qualified for the study, students had to take at least eight practice tests assigned in the course, have a 75% attendance rate, and must have answered at least 1,500 questions from the Blueprint question bank (the assigned work in their course Study Plan). Students who had a starting score of 165 or higher were excluded from this study."
The "regional plan" appears to have a better shot with existing cash reserves; increasing prices is not a good thing; The Nat'l plan wants to try out what has succeeded for the regional plan; lots have tried it and failed. The Nat's plan can't afford to "experiment when they want to "increase profits"
When she finally gets to a grouping question (around 0:50:30) and its answer (around 1:02:00), SHE DOES NOT HAVE THE QUESTIONS ON HER SLIDES. However if you follow the notes link in the description you can see the slides and these do include the questions.
A person like me, English is my second language. I have been practice for two weeks and I feel there is no way I can make it because from what I see on the test. There are even words that I don’t understand them. How am I going to make it otherwise I would give up.
I still don't quite know why (A) weakens. Seems like it's might have weaken the premise: 1880s birds containing 1/2 mercury levels than birds now do. We, however don't know the mercury level per fish in the two era, nor do we know if birds can get mercury from other sources. Given this, how does (A) still explain anything or "weakens" the argument?
