Okay so for those confused on this one I wanted to offer an alternative explanation that I used to get the right answer here.

The trick with A is that it is worded horribly and confusingly such that if you are rushing through answer choices you can and will misread it (i did at first).

1. A says there are fewer car thieves which as said we must assume if true means less thefts. We can kinda apply the economic idea of ceteris paribus here (keep all else equal). All else equal would mean the remaining thief's don't change their car stealing habits (increase or decrease). So all else equal if there are fewer thieves and no change in habits there is less car thefts.

2. The second part is tricky. What it is saying in simple terms is that more thieves are staying in cars for a longer period of time such that owners are more often noticing they are stealing the cars. In the past a larger proportion of thieves would abandon cars sooner before owners detected them (this is sorta the contrapositive of the second statement).

3. Thus considering 2 we can conclude that thieves are being detected by owners more often as they are remaining in vehicles until owners notice more often then in the past.

Hopefully this helps!

Answer A requires some absurd assumptions but it truly is a best of the worst kinda answer. We have to assume that just because one does not believe Walker is guilty they will not adjust their rankings of Walker. Making assumptions like these always throw me for the loop when in most other areas of the exam assumptions lead to getting answers wrong LOL

I have to disagree with JY on why A is correct here. I got this right and am confident A must be true because of the only if statement. We know that only if a component (in which we refer to any component) is comparable in ALL other significant respects to semiconductors can it be preferable to a semiconductor in general. We are further told one of these significant respects is maximum current capacity. In the next sentence we learn that vacuum tubes (not just se vacuum tubes) do not have comparable maximum current capacities to semiconductors. Since vacuum tubes are failing the necessary condition of being preferable in all other significant respects we can conclude that vacuum tubes are not currently preferable.

Let me know if there is any flaws in the logic here. Thanks!

I had a partial stroke reading the question for some reason LOL. Got it right but had to reread it a few times

The reason I picked C and not B was because B states is claiming that if the population exceeds 250 it will automatically be self sustaining, but the stimulus says that the current habitat is not enough to support any more panthers than the 70-100 currently there. Therefore the panthers but no means can ever exceed 250 in that habitat because it cannot support more than 70 to 100. In addition the sufficiency necessity claims also come into play as even if an extra 150 panthers randomly popped up in the habitat they would die given that their is not enough resources to support them which is the opposite of self sustaining.

For those curious I did some research and the authors last name is pronounce (Fah-Lay-Lay).

Doesn't C weaken the argument to some extent. Since the author claims the ability to detect tornadoes has likely improved but the actual number of tornadoes detected according to AC C has stayed the same?

Since according to C if the amount of Large and Medium tornadoes reported hasn't changed than there are not definitively more being detected unless we make the assumption that small tornadoes reporting has not remained constant.

AC C gives us nothing to make the assumption that small tornadoes are not also constant for all we know the number for small tornadoes reported could be constant, less, or more.

It seems AC C doesn't strengthen the argument unless you assume the impact on small tornadoes which we are told nothing about.

I got this right first try but took about 4 minutes. Here's my tip with these questions make sure you find the gap in the stimulus. There will always be a gap where something doesn't fully click. In this questions it was between "promises making no sense if out of one's control" and "no one should take love to be referring to a feeling."

How do these two really relate to each other? In the stimulus they do not. They feel like two independent claims because no one is saying that a promise cannot simply make no sense and still be made. For the authors conclusion to be true we have to prove that a non sensical promise cannot possibly be exist, because otherwise individuals would be able to take love to refer to a feeling they just would do so on a promise they know cannot be upheld and makes no sense.

In other words what D is actually saying is that if a promise is interpreted in a way that makes no sense it is not actually a promise at all. Thus for a marital vows to be a promise they by D's definition must make sense and in order to make sense they cannot be referring to love as a feeling as feelings our out of ones control.

The reason why B is incorrect is that is still allows for a promise to be a promise even if it makes no sense and is out of one's control. Thus one can promise another to "love them until death" fully knowing the promise makes no sense and refer to love as a feeling still. All B says is that one should not make the promises, but it fails to establish that one quite literally cannot make the promise.

For those confused on why E is incorrect, it is because the stimulus tells us what makes one eligible then proceeds to say if one is eligible here is one instance where they should be given the commendation. The stimulus doesn't say that the only way to get a commendation is to exceed reasonable expectation and save a life. It tells us that exceeding reasonable expectations and saving a life is one way to receive mayoral commendations.

In AC E we are saying both are eligible for the award (i.e. exemplary record), but we are then saying only Franklin satisfies the conditions for the receiving the award as outlined in the stimulus. This is where we have to notice that the stimulus only outlines one manner in which one obtains the award. From E we can conclude that Franklin should receive the award but we have no idea about whether we can deny/reject Penn from receiving an award.

Here is what helped me eliminate D. Here's an analogous argument to D.

I know my car could breakdown and cause an accident that results in the damage to another individuals property.

Based on that statement is there any basis that I should reasonably expect my car is going to breakdown? Have I said I have a faulty motor? or am aware of engine trouble? No I have not. There is always a potential for just about anything to happen. I know that I could spontaneously combust but if I have no evidence as to how or why then I simply cannot reasonably expect that to happen.

Referencing my car example everyone knows their car could breakdown but that doesn't mean they are constantly reasonably expecting it to happen. The main consideration is acknowledging the spectrum upon which the possibility of an outcome occurs. Pretty much anything could happen. This is on the lenient side of the possibility spectrum, but as likelihood increases the reasonableness of the event occurring increases. In addition the more aware we are of the factors influencing the reasonableness of an event occurring the more reasonable it is for us to expect such an event to occur.

This was a little tricky for me. I understood the author saying "it is no wonder that" as an acknowledgment that the benefits of the satellites that were listed were so great that its obvious why environmentalist wouldn't consider discontinuing space flight. In others words I read the sentence as saying the benefits far outweigh the cons leading me to select answer choice B.

Is this not how the author intended the come across in the passage? How else can the It is no wonder be interpreted other than as an acknowledgement of the greatness of the benefits?

I thought the author was siding with environmentalists as well. There doesn't appear to be any grammatical tells otherwise. Not sure if I'm missing context here?

Can anyone help me resolve this confusion?

at least his first name isn't Harry.

Dude I did the stain glass RC a few days ago it was so bad!

A is a trick answer if you don't slow down and read the question stem. We are asked about the economist. The economists claims, "CEO's sole responsibility is to the owners, whose primary interest, EXCEPT IN CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS, is the protection of their profits.".

He goes on to say CEOs are bound to seek profits for owners. This claim still only refers to institutions which are not charitable institutions.

This is all we learn about the economists take on charitable organizations. Everything else we learn is in reference to noncharitable organizations.

Hope this helps!

I got it right but if i see a question this long on the LSAT im skipping and coming back later LOL

Are we supposed to read the passage when doing these?

Ugh got it right then second guessed in the blind review. Am i the only one who finds blind reviewing sometimes causes overthinking the question and answer choices?

This is going to be my down fall

Theodora is actually ragebaiting atp LMFAO

Idk how to explain it but I just felt in my soul that there was a sufficient necessity confusion and went with A LMAO.

Wow this science journalists needs to be fired immediately. Even Mr. Fat Cat wouldn't make a mistake like this.

Wanted to clarify why A is incorrect and what helped me rule it out quickly. AC A refers to a "factor" (slipped disc) that it states is sufficient to produce an effect (back pain) but AC A also tells us one can have back pain WITHOUT slipped discs. Notice how this has nothing to do with our stimulus. The stimulus refers to two groups WITH slipped discs yet only one group experiences back pain.

In addition according to A slipped discs (the factor) is sufficient to produce back pain (effect) but our stimulus immediately disproves this because we have people with slipped disks (the supposed sufficient condition in A) who experience no back pain (the effect) despite satisfying the sufficient condition. Notice how this makes no sense. How can slipped disc be a sufficient condition for back pain yet when satisfied according to the stim does not result in the effect.

Still confused as to how fear over losing one's job (AC A) is not considered social inertia. If everyone fears losing their job to technology even if said technology may make them more safe and or comfortable the social inertia of people to not lose their jobs causes them to resist the innovations. That would validate the stimulus not weaken it. Even the explanation states social inertia is a desire for things not to change. One losing their job certainly would be a change thus social inertia by that logic would be in fact be desiring not to lose one's job due to tech innovations.

Just confused at how we can draw the line that A's concern is not social inertia when it perfectly fits the bill and definition of social inertia. Would love to hear some takes and opinions on how those who got it right drew a distinction between A and social inertia.

Also please point out any flaws in my understanding. I really want to grasp this!

Thanks!