The way I broke down A "The amphibian species whose population declines have been attributed by many scientists to industrial pollution are not known to be among those species whose populations do not vary greatly as a result of natural variations in the weather" is as follows:

The amphibian species ... (whose population declines have been attributed by many scientists to industrial pollution) are not known to be among those species (whose populations do not vary greatly as a result of natural variations in the weather).

1st Parentheses (whose population declines have been attributed by many scientists to industrial pollution)) is about the "certain species" stimulus discuses.

2nd Parentheses (whose populations do not vary greatly as a result of natural variations in the weather) is about the group that is not part of the "most amphibian species' populations vary greatly from year to year because of natural variations in the weather". So, the group of the 2nd Parentheses is part of the "Not Most" group or the "0-50" group, when taking the "most" group to be "51-100".

So putting it all in but condensing it:

The amphibian species of certain species are not known to be among those species in the not most group.

In other words, the certain species ARE part of the most group (because of the double negatives that cancel out).

And exactly that's the assumption the argument makes. The argument assumes that the "certain species" is part of the "most amphibian species populations" group.

I think it's a bug? Let's hope it is

I'm not sure why JY is explaining why A doesn't fit entirely.

Last sentence of stimulus tells us that Vacuum tubes are presently not comparable to that of semiconductors. That fits the sufficient condition of our contrapositive rule:

/comparable -> /preferable.

So, A makes sense as the correct answer.

If you ride the /comparable condition, then you get to /preferable, which is A and is the correct answer.

@ChristopherSpencer You may not have gotten the questions right, but your realisation is a major win. Take time to reflect on your realisation and use that to make better judgements in the future when evaluating ACs. I mean it. It took me months before I realised what you realised!

Question about LSAT math, relevant to this question:

If a stimulus makes a comparison about two groups and how there are a given number of A's in B's and concludes that there are MORE of something than the other, can we jump in and question whether the starting amount is the same?

In this question, the conclusion is quantitative. The author concludes that there are MORE of A than B. So, would it be okay to ask myself "do we know if the two groups started with the same amount?"

With the answer being no, would it be okay to jump to AC B that tells us that the two groups started with the same amount?

Hi @Lawlover1234, I can't speak much but I am in similar shoes of yours. I too was planning on applying this fall, but my LSAT score might say otherwise. The law school application numbers have been increasing, more people are applying, and schools are really prioritising those with a high LSAT score (check LSD, any 7sage admissions podcast, LSAT demon podcast, etc.). So, my game plan has become--if I don't get a score that I know I have a better chance in (mid 160s or higher) then I won't apply. I just don't think it's worth the application cost and time to brink on the hope that current LSAT score will bring miracles in front of the admissions committee. Also, with this game plan, I think that I won't register a test in advance, but will just keep practicing and will take the test when I see my scores near that score I want. I know that's probably not you want to hear, but law school admissions seem to be getting more competitive each year and it might be best played if you apply with the best cards and confidence.

I think it depends on where you want to go too, but if it's big law, then maybe studying for the LSAT and retaking in the future might be a good idea. Ofc, this is all my thoughts, but feel free to grab what you like from it. Good luck!

Here's another way to think of A.

In the stimulus we are told that "hormones produce growth in connective tissue rather than in muscle mass; this does not improve muscle strength."

What this means is that:

connective tissue -> /muscle mass -> /muscle strength. (it's an exclusive relationship).

I like to approach Necessary Assumption questions like a Must be True question since negation test really confuses me. So, when we approach A, we apply Must be True test.

If the stimulus is true, must "An increase in muscle mass produces na increase in strength" be true?

Well we know from the stimulus that "/muscle mass -> /muscle strength".

But, As tells us that "muscle mass -> muscle strength". This appears to be the sufficiency necessity confusion. So, because of this, A doesn't pass our MBT test. A goes against what the stimulus tells us.

Also, a similar point here: in the stimulus we are concerned about when there is connective tissue or when there is no muscle mass. A is concerned about when there is muscle mass. The subject is irrelevant to the stimulus, which is also why A is incorrect.

@Kevin_Lin Thank you!

@Kevin_Lin Yes, Is there any way to get it back to how it was before? Where the LR Question Stem was alphabetised from the top, then the LR Stimulus Logic alphabetised afterwards?

Mixing the Question Stem and Stimulus Logic together with in alphabetised order is difficult to see.

I feel you. On my RC section, I did one of my absolute no-no's: getting bogged down in a single paragraph and then spending too much time on the 2nd passage, taking time away from the other passages and sending me into like a mild-panic moment. I didn't really finish the RC section, lots of flags and I don't think I got the last passage at all (-7/-8). The domino effect threw me off horribly.

But, I am taking this as a learning experience. Like you, this was my first time taking the real LSAT. It was also my first time taking a digital exam (I've only taken pen and paper ones). So, this entirely new. My takeaways from this mess-up (if you can call it that) is that now I know what to focus more on. I know that something like this can happen, and going into my studying phase again, I should work on trying to mitigate that situation.

For yourself, I hope you can reflect and say a similar thing. Now you know where you're weak points are on the real exam, where there is a different level of anxiety and external factors part of the test-taking experience. My point is this: take this June LSAT as a learning experience. PTs and sections can't replicate what it's truly like to be in the testing centre. But, now you know how it's like to sit in the desk pods, to take the test on a desktop, to be taking it while people walk past you, and etc.

So, as you start your next phase of studying, take what you did in this learning experience and apply it to your study plan. Keep your head up high. Not everything goes well on the first try, and take this as a valuable learning experience. Try taking a PT in a public place where there are plenty of distractions, work on trying to do the first 10 Qs in 10 mins, or jus try to work on Speed Training Drills to really get yourself to speed.

Although I had this mess up, I don't plan on cancelling my score and I don't think you should either. I'm not a professional (I'm just like you so take my advice with a grain of salt). As @haena said, I'm in complete agreement. There's no negative impact on your whole LSAT journey and Law School Admissions process with this.

Take some time to reflect on your test day experience. Maybe write it down? Tell a friend / study buddy / tutor. Ask yourself how was I feeling when I was going through that tough time? What did I do? What could I have done instead? Did I panic? etc. There's no need to freak out about it. I think there's a lot of people (like myself) who feel similarly. But, again, we can take our upsetting moments and turn it into a learning experience. If you want to just vent about it, feel free to message me.

Apologies for how long this comment is, but keep your head up! Don't give up! We're all in this together :)

https://www.lsac.org/lsat/lsat-test-day-complaints-and-feedback

I don't know much about complaints, but I believe you have only 2 calendar days after taking exam to submit a complaint!

Have you taken a diagnostic? I would a PT if you haven't done your diagnostic PT. It's just to see where you are at before you start any intensive prep. Don't be discouraged by the outcome, it just shows you what you'll need to focus on once you finish the Foundations and what to focus on more closely when you start the CC

Take a break from it. This week I've been just doing maintenance drills. No heavy stuff, no PT, did a set of RC drills to mimic a section but nothing like a real section. You can't cram things in the week of the test, and it's probably counterintuitive to do so.

Take care of yourself, maybe don't do too many drills, focus on watching the explanation videos, etc. I'd say go do things you like to do and maybe throw in some meditation/mindfulness exercises/breathing exercises too. I wouldn't push yourself on the week of the test.

You want to be up and ready to rock and roll on Saturday. Save the energy and mental energy for Saturday. You've done all the hard work in the weeks leading up to now. Keep your head up and stay positive!

It is otherwise diagrammed (correct me if I am mistaken).

Let's say we have a rule: A -> B

If we are told, it is otherwise, then this means our "it is otherwise" rule is now: /A -> /B

Is this correct?

I misread the question stem so bad. Read A and was like, great fits the PSA. Moving on.

Then on BR realised I should've treated like PSA Except question.

Taking the L on this one. My confidence go to me here.

Something I learned in university as an anthropology major:

Your thesis can be written as "In this essay, I argue that.."

Simple as that! You can add how you're going to support it like "I draw on support from personal experience and perspective X & Y". Thus, as these perspectives show, THESIS AGAIN".

I think the Intro can be scary, but you just need to make your point. Just keep it simple and straightforward. It can definitely be 1 sentence long.

If we use must be true test on C, we can eliminate it pretty quick.

Must it be true that "Knowledge of dromeosaur fossils and the earliest bird fossils is complete"?

No, we don't know that it must be true. It could be true that it is complete, but it could be the case that it isn't. To say something is complete is to be 100% certain and we don't have that certainty based on our stimulus/

In comparison, D passes the must be true test. Must it be true that "Known fossils indicate the relative dates of origin of birds and dromeosaurs"? Yes this must be true.

If we know that the earliest bird fossils that have been discovered predate the oldest known D fossils, then it also must be true that the known fossils (D ones) show the relative dates of origins of birds and D.

To check we could use negation test.

If it's true that Known fossils DO NOT indicate the relative dates of origin of birds and dromeosaurs", does it destroy the conclusion that the claim is false? Absolutely yes. If the negation of D is true, then the fossils have no bearing to support our conclusion. If the fossils can't indicate the date of origin then can we even use our premises to support what came before or after?

So, D is correct.

Unpopular Faculty -> Modify

Unpopular Students -> Adapt

/Unpopular Faculty -> Unpopular Student

E -

/Unpopular Faculty (Popular Faculty) -> Unpopular Student -> Adapt

I have a feeling that if this was presented as a "Weaken" Q type, then it would be more obvious that B introduces this new idea "evidence/counter principle" that makes the conclusion less likely to be true.

But, at the same time, there's this psychological thing about flaw questions that makes you really panicked and stressed out. I think that's what messes you up.

A was super tricky for me and I chose it in Actual time. But on BR, I realised exactly what Kevin said. If you have one example in the premise and the conclusion is about sometimes, that's entirely valid. That's what we do in MSS/MBT questions where you take one instance and infer that it could sometimes be the case.

So, the psychological part of the test really hits on these harder flaws!

@SaniqueRowe Can I make a follow up comment for the same issue on PT138.S1? The whole Section is missing passage explanations for the RC section.

Very weird question stem, didn't really understand what my task was, but I assumed that we wanted to find an alternative hypothesis for the phenomenon.

POE'd and landed on C but I def was running circles in my head eliminating based on whether the AC was connecting back to stimulus on showing an Alt Hyp.

Flaw for me was premise was about "Incidence of Cancer". Conclusion about "increased health risk".

A matches great. "Incidence of certain major illnesses" in premise and "increased health risk" in conclusion.

I'm planning on doing the writing portion like a week after the test! Need some time to prepare just for the exam, then I'll make time to prepare just for the writing and then get that out of the way.