How can you infer K has a reason to do it? Merely from the fact that G has no reason? That question made me choose B, which seems better matched.

E: The reason why group 1 got those book is told by the premise. It's an experiment, which gives group 1 the books. So it's not like a typical correlation-caulsation flaw. It's a controled experiment. So we can safely conclude that having the books causing fewer visists to doctors.

D: The conclusion mistakenly equals fewer visits to doctors to being healthy. From the experiment, we can only conclude that having the books leads to fewer visits. And given the premise that being healthier can also lead to fewer visits, we cannot conclude that having the books leads to being healthier. Maybe they just believe they can handle their heath issues with the books. They could still be in original health condition. This can be simplified like: A can lead to C, and B can also lead to C, but A doesn't necessarily lead to B. A and B could still be independent from each other.

I initially chose D and chose C in blind review. Here is what I thought: The lawgic is pretty clear, so we only need to find the error. I chose D at the first time because Rashmi didn't preserve the client's email properly so probably it's an error. But then in blind review I reassess this AC and I got another idea. Why would an unintentional action be an error? At least compared to AC C, which says Rashmi (intentionally) disclose the client's email to Mark, AC D would be an error of less severe level. Even though Rashmi's purpose of doing this is to help Mark, disclosing client's info itself is an error. That's why I chose C later. Can somebody point out what's wrong with my rationale?

#help (Added by Admin)

JY has mentioned various cookie cutters regarding Sci RC, natural events, and some other topics. So is there a whole classification or collection of these cookie cutters for us to get a full picture?

I chose A initially and D when I did blind review. I can understand JY's explanation, but D seems to offer a case that even self-pollinating primroses can produce more seeds, they are not planted in areas which is suitable for their growth, so they still need the help of insects to carry their seeds to suitable places. That's why they are rarer than non-self-pollinating primroses. Can somebody point out what's going wrong with my thought?

#help (Added by Admin)

It took me 5 times to understand what the stimulus really means. This argument is trying to say, you cannot blame criminals because it's the environment that makes these people commit crime, but you can blame law-abiding people because they make the environment. However, it fails to consider that criminals and law-abiding people are both under the effect of the environment, if you cannot blame criminals, you can't blame law-abiding people either. You can't use different principle to treat these two parts of people belonging to the whole group.

B is literally playing a literal game

Someone please help me with this. I don't see how AC A is necessary. The stimulus tells us most people in the poll oppose the tariff. Let's suppose we have 1000 voters, of which 5 are supporters of the tariff and 995 are opponents. Even if supporters are significantly more likely to base their vote on politician's stands, say 80% of the supporters will base their vote on politician's stands while only 30% of the opponents will base their vote on politician's stands, that would still be 4 vs. 331. In this case, the politician definitely should still vote against the tariff. So how can it be necessary?

#help (Added by Admin)

Doesn't this one look more like a NA question? For me at first, I was trying to find the prototype of "if...then..."gap, but there wasn't one AC fit this formula perfectly, so I chose C even though I was still not sure. But A? Never thought about that.

I chose A initially cuz I thought horse is a completely different species and we need to make additional assumption that horses and seals have some similarity regarding body functions.

And, in ac B I assumed that spleens are some kind of muscle organ like the heart. So I think both ACs need some extent of additional assumption, and A just need less.

Premise: there is a correlation between joining chess program and increased school work.

Conclusion: It must be the chess program contribute to the increased school work.

Gap: there could be a third party contributing to the increased school work.

AC C provide us with another explanation.

I am still confused about E. E strengthens the correlation between family size and children's allergies, but how dose it strengthen the hypo that germs have anything to do with this phenomenon? In order for E to strengthen the argument, we need to make an additional assumption that going to day care can affect children's exposure to germs. From this point, A seems to do the same thing to the argument, which is strengthening the correlation.

Some tests just hit more fields which you are not good at than other one. Don't be too panic about it. Believe your ability since you are already scoring mid 160s in average. Take a break and come back later. You can do it!

I just cannot imagine how will the explorer not survive if every stage of their trip is safe. I get the point of AC A, but there exists a situation when each part has some characteristic the whole group has the same characteristic, like when every member of the group is a man, the whole group are men, or this case in the stimulus.

Indeed, there could still be a tiny possibility of death for each stage, but even those stage sums, they could still not justify the extent of unable to survive.

Same in lower 160s currently. RC is also my worst part, sometimes I could get -4 but the next PT -12. As a non-native speaker, these wording and topics are so hard for me. Just keep drilling and hope someday I can break trough it. Don't give up.

Q12 I thought we are supposed to find what the author wish the legal writing would be...

I think for E to be necessary we still need to make additional assumption, which is the boat cannot make it on the ocean unless it can maintain stable. What if a temporary swing doesn't necessarily cause the boat to sink? In this case we don't need to maintain stable all the time, and E won't be necessary. So E is also flawed somehow.

"Whether" includes two layers of meanings, yes or no. So if we find S's claim to be true, S got the power, we can determine it's possible to have the power. But if S doesn't have the power, there exists a question whether we can say it's not possible to have the power? Cuz S's case is just one case, and a failure of one case doesn't necessarily justify all case would be failure. So the gap would be if S doesn't have the power, we oculd still determine if it's possible to have the power.

Can JY explain every question without bias assuming everyone can see what you see? Like explain why E is wrong instead of a "wow"? Sometimes I was just trapped by some "apparent" wrong ACs maybe because I miss some details or way of thinking, and I need someone to point that out.

I can see the point why B or C is plausible to choose. I chose B at my first take after carefully considering both ACs. Here is my reasoning: We know despite waste-to-energy plant pollute 3 times more than gas-fired plant, environmentalists still support w-t-e plant, so w-t-e plant must have some special quality that justify environmentalists' choice.

C says the previous plant pollute far more than w-t-e plant, which justify the use of w-t-e plant. But if the level of pollution is the only factor in deciding between the two types of plants, why would we choose w-t-e instead of g-f, which pollute even less? Although a third party came to make the w-t-e plant looks not that bad, still, g-f is better than w-t-e. The third party doesn't change this fact. That's the reason why I skipped AC C.

B says the city has the need to deal with waste, which gives us the reason why we choose w-t-e plant rather than g-f plant. Although it doesn't address the difference between the pollution level between the two types of plant, at least it provides a more closely linked quality to address the puzzle.

In short, I think B&C both are not perfect answer. I made my choice based on the criterion that which one is more closely related to the missing quality.

I thought B is trying to block another interfering factor, which is the political unrest. So I chose B at first. But in JY's view, B is saying despite bad weather the Roman empire still held well, which weakens the argument lol

Premise: When students show up, police issued more tickets than when students out of town.

Conclusion: police issued most of the citations to students

Flaw: the argument attributes the most citations to students without precluding other correlative factors accompanying school year, like more parents in town, more business in town, more teachers in town, etc.

E did the same thing, which attributes most snacks to other children without considering other correlative factors, like other children's parents.

A is wrong because A said children buy most of the snacks at cinemas. In order to get that conclusion, we need a comparison between the snacks children buy at cinemas and the snacks children buy at other places, like grocery stores, supermarkets, not the comparison between the snacks when more children go to cinemas and the snacks when less children go to cinemas.

I chose E at both the first take and blind review.

I think to make C really weaken the argument, we still need to make additional assumption that Jason didn't buy any produce without label.

And to make E work, we also need to make additional assumption that Jason is one of the most people buying produce without pesticide.

So what makes C better when both AC need additional assumption to weaken the argument?

#help (Added by Admin)

For question #13, I don't get the difference between AC B and E, cuz from my view, they all mean the interior look has some effect on the structure. Can someone help me clarify the difference?

#help

After several months' prep, I've nearly run out of all the PTs and start retaking previous PTs. I felt although you might remember some questions, games or passages, but you might not remember the majority of them, cuz LSAT is a test of short term memory. Those tough questions could still be a challenge if you didn't master the reasoning process. So retaking previous PTs is also valuable, don't worry about that.