Laughed out loud when I saw this answer. I actually have synesthesia - I guess it was meant to be that I can't accurately understand the words of this question because I can't understand anything at all. Knowing I'll get a 120 on the LSAT makes me feel yellow-orange, or maybe lamp.

What is this curve bro. 50% of people who scored a literal 120 got this right but ~25% of people who got a 174 got this wrong. A question so easy it's a curvebreaker.

@msingh0831x225 This analysis is not right - negating the conclusion (KLE -> /FP) is actually (KLE AND FP.) In other words, KLE and FP can both exist. To negate a conditional, you deny that the thing on the left side of the arrow is sufficient.

I read this like: the physicists in the first paragraph are specifically not pursuing a theory that can actually explain everything's future behavior, that is a misleading characterization by popular reports. So why is D right when it says that all "economic activity can be explained..." from fundamental interactions?

Somehow this is the only one I got wrong in this section. The "laws should be fashioned" threw me off.

I got this right by diagramming, and what they're doing makes sense, but it really seems like a commonsense assumption that a "carefully conducted study" would have a control - I mean, that is the only way you can infer any conclusion.

@acastillo0395 D is wrong first because we are looking only at the author's hypothetical, where rattles are not brittle. ("So if they were not so brittle, one...")

E seems weird because it's about food, which isn't even mentioned in the stim. But it's correct. Why? If it wasn't true (which you can check by doing the Negation Test, to check that the assumption is necessary) you get: "rattlesnakes DON'T molt as often when food is scarce as they do when food is plentiful."

This means that the snake molting (which makes new sections) is not at a constant rate. Therefore, this destroys the conclusion (that you would be able to tell a rattlesnake's age just by the number of sections in its tail). In other words, E NOT being introduces another variable (food) that affects a rattlesnake's number of sections. Then you can't tell whether a rattlesnake has 5 sections because it molted, say, once a year for five years, or it's (say) a 2-year old snake which ate a lot and molted very frequently. Since E not being true destroys the conclusion, then E is necessary.

I think this is the only argument part question I've ever seen where the argument part basically does nothing.

If you have the time to translate each answer, the answer is honestly obvious. But this Q is probably the biggest time eater I've ever seen.

If it makes anyone feel better, I am an environmental chemistry major and got this wrong on both normal answer and blind review.

Got this right by POE, but really D is the only one that is directly counteracted. A and C are borderline irrelevant, but they are NOT incompatible (they don't contradict anything in the stim.) The original function argument is "one reason," but not the only, so B could be true. E is implied to be true for some works of art, but (to the author) not true for European music. Therefore, D.

They are living organisms that are neither plants nor animals, filling the unstated gap

Doesn't AC A suggest that the craters on Mars show some evidence (however weakly) that a few projectiles DID strike Mars, weakening the assertion that the LHB was limited to the Earth and Moon?

If the study ISN'T accurate, the first condition isn't triggered, so we can't infer anything else. So the study has to be accurate for anything to follow; hence we choose D.

Extra confusing because it seems like the conclusion can ONLY follow if the data reported in the study is correct. I diagrammed this as IF the study is accurate -> moderate exercise lowers cholesterol -> lowers risk of hardening arteries -> lowers risk of arterial blood clots (conclusion). I get the question's language makes it a sufficient assumption, but I feel as if this is also a sneaky necessary assumption - someone correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe the most challenging question I've seen where the answer still feels 'fair' on a gut level.