If a statement could start with “In practice…” or “Over time, it has been observed that…,” the LSAT will often call it a “historical fact.”

So in this case:

“Over time, painting has remained an art form even after photography appeared” ✅ qualifies as a historical fact.

The fossilized bacteria … must have already had a long evolutionary history.”

That line (#3) is supported by evidence (their complexity), and it in turn supports another claim (that life arose soon after Earth formed).

So it’s not the main conclusion but a subsidiary (intermediate) conclusion — something proven partway that helps build toward the main point.

Correct answer: (e)It resolves the paradox because it explains that once a company has already achieved efficiency through centralization, further productivity gains come from empowering employees to innovate.

When an argument makes a value judgment (“should,” “good,” “bad”), find the principle it assumes.Ask: What goal or value does the author care about most?Here, it’s that reading programs should instill a love of reading, not just increase numbers.→ Pick the answer that states that goal or value.

When an argument moves from “X is correlated with Y” to “X causes Y,” ask “what rule would let me make that leap?” The right assumption will bridge correlation → causation (like C).

• Summarize the rule in your own words before looking at the answers. → (“People shouldn’t do harmful things that might influence others to harm society.”)

• Match directionality — if the stimulus says what individuals should not do, eliminate anything about what society should require or what others should emulate.

• Beware of moral upgrades — if the passage says “should not,” avoid answers that say “must,” “require,” or “ought to be punished.”

• Ask: does this answer mirror the reasoning or comment on it? You want a mirror, not a commentator.

@Kevin_Lin I mean when you hover over the "i" on one that is selected, it will say that you answered this incorrectly. I could refrain from looking but I think it not telling you that you got it incorrect would be much better.

@elbicho HAHA so happy to help

@Kevin_Lin I find that it giving you the reasoning it was selected makes BR useless in itself.

Pattern:

MOST A are B. Only C are B. → SOME A are C.

Or in Kate’s case:

Most Wednesdays = buy juice (A → B). Only health store sells juice (B → C). Therefore, some Wednesdays = shop at health store (A → C).

✨ Quick Rule to Remember

When LSAT gives you a timeline, the correct inference usually comes from comparing those time points and figuring out what must have already happened by the later one.

• Don’t focus on who the story is about; focus on what lesson is being illustrated.

• LSAT often uses followers (employees, students) to show a principle about the leader’s actions.

• In leader/follower setups, ask: what did the leader do that caused success?

• The correct answer will generalize that cause-and-effect in abstract terms.

Core Argument: Engineering vs. physics/chemistry → Machines’ purposeful function Physiology vs. physics/chemistry → Organisms’ purposeful function

Conclusion: The relationship between engineering and physics/chemistry is analogous to that between physiology and physics/chemistry.

Assumption (gap): Organisms, like machines, have something comparable to a purpose — otherwise the analogy fails.

Correct Answer (C): The notion of purpose used by engineers to judge machinery has an analog in organisms.

Why others are wrong:

• (A) Too strong; analogy doesn’t require organisms to be machines.

• (B) Restates a premise, not an assumption.

• (D) Overstates independence between sciences.

• (E) Too extreme; reduction not required to be false.

Conclusion: The emotion parents feel while singing to their infants noticeably affects the sound of their singing.

Evidence: Parents were recorded singing to their infants and alone. Psychologists (who hadn’t seen the recordings) correctly identified 80% of the “singing-to-baby” recordings.

Logical Gap: Just because listeners can tell which songs were to infants doesn’t prove emotion changes the sound of the singing — the difference could come from other factors.

Correct Answer (D): Emotion causes involuntary physiological changes that affect the vocal cords and lungs. → This provides a causal mechanism linking emotion → voice change, directly strengthening the researchers’ conclusion.

Why Others Are Wrong:

• (A) Who the child is (own vs. others) doesn’t show that emotion changes sound.

• (B) Awareness of recording is irrelevant to emotion’s effect.

• (C) Shows difference in emotion levels, not sound change.

• (E) Parents’ beliefs don’t prove the effect is real.

Takeaway Tip: Always find the conclusion first. Then ask, “What would make this conclusion more believable?” If an answer gives a mechanism or causal link, it’s your winner.

How to tell on test day that someone’s assuming something:

Use this simple gut-check checklist:

1. Spot the jump. → Does the conclusion say more than the evidence logically supports?

2. Ask, “What would have to be true for this to make sense?” → That’s the assumption.

3. See if the other person calls that out. → If yes → “denying a presupposition.”

When you see “denies a presupposition” among the answers, pause and ask:

“Is the responder basically saying, ‘You’re assuming something that’s not true’?”

If yes → ✅ you’ve found your winner. If the responder just says “your numbers are wrong” or “that doesn’t matter,” then it’s a different answer type.

• (A) → Compares commercial vs. wild bees — irrelevant. The argument isn’t about wild bees.

• (B) → Talks about reversing breeding effects — not needed for the claim.

• (C) → Talks about continued decline — not part of the reasoning.

• (D) → Talks about past bee populations — not needed for the current decline explanation.

• ✅ (E) → The only one that connects the supposed cause (inbreeding) to the effect (decline).

Tip for discrepancy questions:

1. Identify the “expected vs. observed” result.

2. Ask: What fact would make the observed result unsurprising?

3. Eliminate answers that are true but don’t address the gap between expectation and reality.

Memory Hook:

“Identify structure → label X/Y → check probability → check direction → ignore details → match chain.”

Or in 1-line shorthand:

“Structure, probability, direction, ignore fluff, match chain.” ✅

the argument is specifically about nerve cells in the brain after a stroke. The glutamate in the blood is used as evidence, but the damage we care about is in the brain.

So:

• If glutamate comes from other parts of the body, it might raise blood levels, but it wouldn’t necessarily damage brain cells.

• The argument’s chain is brain nerve cell damage → glutamate leaks → more brain nerve cell damage.

• That’s why knowing that the glutamate in the blood came from damaged brain nerve cells is crucial. Otherwise, the blood measurement doesn’t actually support the claim about brain damage.

On the LSAT, “direct” means there are no missing steps between A and B in the stimulus.

• Exercise → calm mind ✅ Direct (stimulus says exercise calms the mind).

• Calm mind → less stress ✅ Direct (stimulus says calming the mind reduces stress).

• Less stress → lower blood pressure ✅ Direct (stimulus says reducing stress can lower blood pressure).

But Exercise → lower blood pressure ❌ Not direct, because there are intermediate steps (calming the mind, reducing stress) in the chain. LSAT calls that “indirect” even though it eventually leads there—it’s not stated as a straight A → B link.

Think of it like stepping stones: you can get across the river, but skipping stones isn’t “direct.

@jenniferlim4063653 This is helpful!

This was unnecessarily hard for me.

Aquatic furbearer = fur-bearing animal. NOTED

@dlaguna612! same. but i finally figured it out.

We are only focused on increase v. decrease. So, the starting point really does not matter. They could have had individuals with various levels of productivity in the study and it does not matter.

A is correct because it says Plant A received FREE breakfast every morning. Plant B did not only not receive a free breakfast, but they also did not eat nutritious breakfasts.

I chose C, but I UNDERSTAND! We are only focused on increase v. decrease. So, the starting point really does not matter. They could have had individuals with various levels of productivity in the study and it does not matter.

A is correct because it says Plant A received FREE breakfast every morning. Plant B did not only not receive a free breakfast, but they also did not eat nutritious breakfasts.