@19213

I had a 3rd LR and I remember the train clocks but I don't remember the pluto question or caterpillars with spots or the Pluto planet. Maybe I am still blacking it all out ha.

One thing to keep in mind and to differentiate are the two arguments. One is the statistician's argument and the other is the one being made by the financial magazine.

For answer choice C: It weakens the financial magazine's argument by saying that other surveys suggest otherwise. This strengthens the statisticians argument so would not be a candidate for a strengthen EXCEPT question. If you follow JY's procedure you would circle and move on (circle 4 strengthen and the 5th is your correct answer).

For answer choice E let's first look at the Question stem that reads "Each of the following, IF TRUE." So we accept the answer choices, in the context of a strengthen answer choice it would be hard to strengthen the argument with only the argument itself so outside information isn't a negative. If you look at answer choice C which I think you originally selected, "other surveys," also contains outside information from the stimulus. As for why E is correct, it does nothing to assist the Statistician's argument. It's blah. Okay so they are concerned with other things, but to what degree? Who knows? Therefore it doesn't strengthen. It doesn't have to weaken, just NOT strengthen. That's what we have here. Hope that helps.

Great idea, I'd be interested!

Narrowed it down to D and E and chose E, I got too caught up in premise vs intermediate conclusion and looking back, E is wrong by virtue of what comes after "premise" so at the least I should have been able to eliminate the wrong answers to get to the correct one. Frustrating

At first this question fell under the "older LSATs don't have the rigor of modern LSATs" because as someone who has worked in finance intrinsic value has a meaning that I wouldn't state as non-economic. On examining further I realize that nature's intrinsic value makes it "wrong" so we are no longer talking about an economic analysis, it's a moral stance that goes beyond the costs of not exploiting features of the environment.

Sorry that is so confusing up there, I was editing it and made things worse:

Cloud: As a proportion of all water molecules, %Oxygen O18 %O16 falling to earth of all O16 molecules in the cloud

The short answer is it doesn't reconcile the issue, because for a Must Be True it doesn't need to. Rely solely on the stimulus and the objective of the question and don't get distracted by our innate desire to figure out why this event happens (if it truly does). The correct answer to a MBT doesn't require us to reconcile the issue. So while the logic may seem confusing, and indeed I don't know what action explains O18 content but since O18 is used in paleo climatology maybe the high temperature of the amazon allows for attraction of other O18 molecules outside the rain cloud so the total remains constant whereas O18 decreases in colder climates (hence the use in climatology). That aside it's just not relevant to finding the correct answer. I wrote out the following in Blind Review:

Cloud - total of all Oxygen molecules %O18 %O16 (as a % of total Oxygen16)

So a greater proportion of the class of O18 falls than does of the class of O16 molecules.

Scientists were surprised at O18R=O18Cloud (content not %)

I was a little worried when A looked good as JY mentioned and I originally chose C and fortunately changed it but the question took almost 3 minutes which is way too long.

Or perhaps replenish could mean just adding (replenishing) a set amount of oxygen. This question sticks in your head and I find myself still mulling over it ha.

Just a couple of notes on this question. It's difficult and a little loose but something that struck me while deciding between B and E was that we don't know anything about the overall likelihood of contracting an airborne illness. It's true that one variable has been changed to make it easier but we have no information on other airborne illness interventions (UV light in the air replenishment machine for example) or the overall likelihood in general.

What we do know is that the less frequently the air is replenished the higher the level of carbon dioxide. As far as the air being replenished and reducing the CO2 to zero (comment below), we just don't know what the replenishment actually does. Replenishing on its face could mean resupplying the oxygen to a particular concentration. The scrubbers may or may not remove all of the CO2 so as more builds during the replenishment cycle, only 75% is removed, but since more time has passed and we have an overall greater amount of CO2, we are left with more. In reality though, I don't think it matters because we take the stimulus for what it is and it states less frequent replenishment > CO2. I hope this helps, these questions can be frustrating and sometimes even more so as we review and review.

Interested as well. Thanks!

Anytime!

Of course in the most general sense, there is 8:45 per game if you divide total time by number of games. What you will find out though is that some games just take longer and others, if you're prepared, can go by quite quickly (sometimes under 5 minutes).

I assume when you mean timed portions you are referring to the practice sections in the core curriculum. The answer to your question really depends on where you are at in your study. If you are at the beginning of learning logic games, I would suggest taking your time, use a timer if you'd like but early on pay attention to your diagramming, inferences, intuition, etc... Pay attention to the process. As you get better at the basic skills your time will drop dramatically with practice. At that point, you can use JY's suggested time which is on the review of each game for an idea of where you should be if you are trying to get a near perfect or perfect score on the logic games section.

Don't rush into speed. It's important to build those fundamentals first. Also, don't get frustrated by the times listed on the review screens. You will progress at your own pace and have talents different from other individuals. I seem to be able to do a lot of sequencing games well under recommended times. In/Out games, though, well, I hope we can be friends by June! Good luck.