@osaieh My understanding is this:

Part A and Part B must line up for Part C to be supported.

In the passage, Stallworth must support, and Henning must support in order for gov approval.

But because Gov Approval did not occur, the passage makes a flaw that blames only Henning for lying. It could have been instead that Stallworth lied (or both of them.)

• In A, the newspaper said the accident happened on Aylmer St.

• Morgan said he saw it from his window (who couldn't have seen it the accident did happen on Aylmer St.)

• The answer then conducts a flaw by holding the newspaper as the truth and automatically thinking Morgan is lying. Maybe Morgan is right, and the newspaper is wrong.

(I got this question wrong btw)

@vivi Yes but one thing to know for these type of "passage" support -> "statement" questions:

The more rigid a statement is, the higher the bar becomes for it to be supported.

The more loose a statement is (I,e, "in some cases"), the easier it becomes to support.

For D, the passage clearly states a reason for the deterioration to begin. It is the lack of nerve tissue in the nerve sheath.

In D, it poses a hypothetical of "if you could implant the nerve tissue" then the likelihood of regeneration increases in some cases.

@jhvancil.austin The answer isn't C though - but I'll assume you're talking about D.

Even under your assumption, yes, it BEGINS to deteriorate. Let's say the timeline till full deterioration is 6 months. Or 2 years. Or 10 years. Doesn't matter. It has a likelihood of deteriorating and stopping regeneration prior to completion.

For D, the passage clearly states a reason for the deterioration to begin. It is the lack of nerve tissue in the nerve sheath.

In D, it poses a hypothetical of "if you could implant the nerve tissue" then the likelihood of regeneration increases in some cases.

The some part makes the statement less rigid and more loose, meaning its more easily able to be supported. In general, rigid statements, unless rock solidly supported, are harder to support than loose statements.

@djlectic This is probably the sneakiest question in this test, and possibly in my 6 months of studying.

Getting this question wrong is equivalent to the pleasurable sensation of losing a well played match of chess.

How did more people get this wrong than Q.23 lol

@joejoseph When I started studying for the LSAT, I had this exact same belief.

I genuinely believe that the biggest jump in my LSAT score was when I came across the following knowledge:

That in EVERY LSAT answer set, there will be at least (1) reason why that answer is wrong (if it is not the correct answer.)

The correct answer must have NOTHING WRONG.

If you accept this truth, it becomes much easier, because you will scan for reasons why something is wrong.

For me when it was between (A) and (B), the latter had no discernible strength/support. I'd be pulling it out of thin air to pick that answer. (B) gave me some confidence because perhaps if it was a baby, it did not have the current size/weight, but it grew the needed support features for its future size/weight. There was nothing with the answer that could be misguided.

I was only able to spot the flaw by looking at the answers and eliminating.

And who is to say that the more elaborate computers were not cheaper than the standard computers? Perhaps the elaborate computers were on clearance/promotion?

I sat with this question for a half hour. I finally figured it out. Even 7Sage's explanation is wrong!

Criticism #1 Explained

I first considered the popular criticism that it is not necessarily true that the most metabolically active area of the brain in a subtraction scan is using the most oxygen. This criticism relies on the fMRI logic that the subtraction mapped shows the difference in brain activity in each area, and does not indicate overall brain activity in each area.

Under this interpretation of the answer, this criticism is completely valid, and I actually argue the explanation for (C) on 7Sage relies on this logic and is faulty for doing so, because their explanation is not supported in the passage and would be defeated by the criticism. Area Y may have a baseline of 100 oxygen, and Area X 50. The second scan may show Area Y with a level of 100, and Area X 60, resulting in a 10 visualisation of X on the subtraction image, yet still having an overall lower level of total oxygen usage.

(False) Argument Rectifying Criticism

A commenter here tried to rectify this by creating a nuance that the "rate of oxygen use" specified in the answer refers to only the rate of oxygen used past the baseline in the subtraction scan. This is also incorrect, as there is nothing in the answer or the passage that supports that interpretation. The rate of oxygen usage refers to the overall rate of oxygen usage, which again does not create support for (C), and makes Criticism #1 the correct interpretation.

(Correct) Argument Resolving Criticism

The answer is actually so much more simple. The confusion of this question/answer comes from us as readers being stringed along in understanding the fMRI subtraction theory and losing focus of the simple and literal interpretation of (C). The initial sentence in the answer serves the purpose of triggering recall of the fMRI subtraction theory but actually has no effect on the answer and is bait.

ANSWER

The passage very clearly and simply states that [rate of oxygen usage] is the metric for [metabolic activity]. Whether due to a certain cognitive task, or no certain cognitive task, the areas of the brain most metabolically active inherently uses more oxygen than the rest of the brain. That's it. That is all the answer is saying. It has nothing to do with the subtraction theory mentioned in the 7Sage answer.

I got this question right, but wasn't happy with the answer.

For a work to be [world literature], it must be [interpreted] by [domestic] and [external.]

A work is considered [interpreted] if it achieves (1) of the following conditions:

• a positive model for the development of their own tradition

• acts as a negative case of a decadent tendency

• acts as an image of radical otherness that prompts refinement of the home tradition

My point being that a work can be considered [interpreted] and not affect the development of a national tradition by satisfying condition #2. This still allows a work to be part of world literature as it is not necessary for even one national tradition to have its development affected by the work.

I do counter however. Even if these large cooperative groups included other animals, perhaps those other animals would benefit more from their predators being intimidated than that of them specifically receiving the knowledge that there are predators in the area.

Awesome and very fun question!

My only issue with this question is that it does not specify that the "large cooperative groups" is explicitly exclusive of any other animal species than that of the Babblers themselves.

Relating to (E), should this "large cooperative group" include other animals whom are prey, that answer would make the most sense, as (B) doesn't add as much strength as (E).

In (B), most of the Babblers are already in safety and thus the further intimidation of the predators does not really do anything. In (E), the continued calling serves the function of alerting other animals in the "large cooperative group," fulfilling an obligation of being part of said group.

Either way, there is probably a nuance I missed as to why this interpretation can't be the case, but I wanted to put this perspective out to see if others may have viewed it this way!

@Belle_T I picked D initially because of the time crunch.

However, the structure of D does not work.

Structure of Passage:

• most (S) has (C)

• almost all (S) has (sa), (o), or both

• Thus, some (S) has (C) and (sa)

• Thus, some (S) has (C) and (o)

Structure of D (WRONG):

• almost all (P) that has (s) also has (t)

• most (P) has (C)

• Thus, some (P) has (C) and (t)

• Thus, some (P) has (C) and (s)

Structure of E (ANSWER):

• almost all (P) has (s), (t), or both

• most (P) has (C)

• Thus, some (P) has (C) and (t)

• Thus, some (P) has (C) and (s)

ANSWER TO ALL THOSE BELOW:

I understand how one may interpret (A) as to mean that the [social norms] themselves lead to [recouping costs.]

The way (A) should be read is that [social norms] enables one to practice comedy in a manner which allows one to [recoup cost of developing jokes.]

This is because due to the [social norms], one's [work won't be stolen], and thus they can [make money] and [recoup costs on production of joke.]

I sat with this question for like 5 mins in total, revisiting it twice. I then sat with it for like 20 mins after.

It was not till after I formally began typing out my frustration of the logic that I realised the catch.

Less than 49% of students (missed a class.)

Every student who got less than a (B-) missed one class. Meaning that even if all of the 49% of students who (missed a class) were (B-) students, inherently 51% of the class must have gotten a grade higher than (B-).

You really need to sit with this question, flip the perspectives of the information, and type your thoughts/frustrations out to catch how well crafted this question is. Kudos to the writers.