@ToweringTextbooks Right, so D is incorrect because we know about Daniel's feelings, but S does not. She still does not know.... so she ought to go w what she does know and stay true to her own feelings.

@josephn10 this makes the most sense to me.

Saying any two people have different health problems and thus different dietary needs is kind of insane.

If it said can have, then I would have a tougher time discarding it as an option.

But stating that no two people have the same health problem (I think this is the same as saying any two people have different health problems???) is not the same as saying dietary needs vary widely from person to person.

The person to person situation also includes those looking to prevent different health problems, not just those looking to treat different health problems. (Prevent vs treat)

Ok I chose C, at first, I believe, and then switched to D in BR.

C is wrong and here is why I think that is so:

The stimulus states that dietary needs vary widely from person to person. But C assumes that any two people have different health problems- but the stimulus says that different foods' nutrients can also help prevent health problems. C seems to be assuming that any two people have different health problems- does everybody have health problems?D- I do not like that it says 'some' - even though some is actually still fine. Because it can extend to 'all' - looked in my notes for that one.

@tungvonkk wow I did not notice that! But would it matter? Like, if they were told after (assuming Yeung is the only lawyer in the legal dpt), does it not still violate the K? Because it was before they were told (either of them or neither of them).

@LSATDEMON-notactually I literally just was writing an example like this out. But I am also still confused.

How do we know that Shayna has no idea as to what Daniel would prefer? She knows that if she does not congratulate hi, his feelings will be hurt. Does she not actually know that?

@CallMeEric this makes me feel so much better! Though it is entertaining to see all the kids write about being 25 and 'too old' heheh. We don't disintegrate at 29.... Also looking for mostly online myself - I run a company and wow is even just studying the LSAT a whole new beast! I am thinking of doing an animal law program as well though, so could get some experience through other education in person.

@ahnendc623 I like the god one. Explains a lot about the world...

@Kevin_Lin that is what I see, yes- but I think that more circles were mentioned at some point. But there are only two circles signifying the starting point in the relate. That is the diagram, though.

@arose I like this point. If a sentence had said 'multiple metaanalyses show that keeping an aggressive mammal as a pet will have a 80% chance of being maimed to death' then that would be stronger.

1. Disney is the strongest: it clearly defines there are only two ways to become a member. We know Walt did not take one route, so the only other way that all (important) members gain that pass can be how Walt did it.

2. Tigers is quite strong. But keeping someone (not something) as a pet varies depending upon the animal in our care. We need to look at this from not only what we need, but what the animal in our care needs. So, keeping tigers the same way as you would keep rescue kittens (ie in your bathroom, with a litter box and hourly bottle feedings) wouldn't make sense. But you can care for them as pets in another way.

3. Mr. Fat Cat - I mean... there are so many possibilities for how that situation may have ended up that way. Many reasonable possibilities.

@duck THANK YOU! Just wrote a long comment about this and it is driving me crazy.

Hi. Ok. So the first sentence says Genie+ fast pass. It does not say Genie+ fast pass anywhere else in this paragraph. What if there is a difference between the Genie+ pass and the Genie+ fast pass. The rest makes sense but why even put the word 'fast' in the first sentence only to abandon it in every subsequent sentence?

This really hurts my brain. Because if they are two different things, we may not even be talking about the first thing in the rest of the paragraph.

Walt can access the Genie+ fast pass because he is a member of the Disney Vacation Club.

It seems he also has a Genie+ pass (not fast though). And the only other way other than prostrating oneself to Goofy's altar to get a Genie+ pass- that we are told- is to offer ten goats' worth of proportions to Mickey Mouse.

I hate how the first sentence says fast in it. How often does this happen on the LSAT? Was it a mistake or is there something I am missing?

@NLM

@NLM Same. To be fair, they both somewhat sound like claims, but the first sentence is very "blanket statement" and the second one does provide evidence- linguists would not be able to conduct comparative analysis of traditional languages from various places and times. I think that without the added component of linguists' work, it would not hold up but since there is that support, it seems like it would. The ability for linguists to be able to conduct analysis shows that there is something there, which seems to be support.

@NLM Same. To be fair, they both somewhat sound like claims, but the first sentence is very "blanket statement" and the second one does provide evidence- linguists would not be able to conduct comparative analysis of traditional languages from various places and times. I think that without the added component of linguists' work, it would not hold up but since there is that support, it seems like it would. The ability for linguists to be able to conduct analysis shows that there is something there, which seems to be support.

@SeanTucker I think that maybe they (hopefully) err on the side of caution and go with what a bear minimum (lol pun) would be- it is reasonable that someone who could seriously injure us through their aggression would not be an ideal being to take care for on na individual basis.

@JBOWLN Ok thank you. This is where my brain was getting confused. What about this- some, all, zero. Some means could include Tigers, except the premise details helps to include them in the conclusion. If it said, tigers are delightful and cuddly, it would make a little less sense because why would that not be a suitable characteristic to desire?

I am really confused. I only see two circles in the diagram- one above the shape containing '10' and one above the shape containing 'your mother' - am I missing something? It seems like there are three relata in the examples. Please clarify. Thank you for your help.