This question is hard because B directly contradicts what most people perceive as fair lol.

In reality there is nothing institutionally legal in the stimulus, making every other answer choice obsolete. B is just so out of the pocket that we are scared to choose it

I hate grammar. Chose C because 51% +51% means there has to be overlap. EXCEPT, C says no most people working at building are from 17, but that building can also only have 3 people working there... ugh

If I read more carefully, I would have easily spotted how C and D are super similar and one is a trap answer. I didn't because I was running out of time :/D is exactly what we want

B is wrong because depending beliefs on nonepistemologial things just mean they believed in not believing which is a belief

The thing about this question is pinpointing their conclusion that defines medieval epistemology simply as "the epistemological beliefs of the medieval epistemologists." Because then, we notice that it assumed the existence of medieval epistemologists. E is correct because E eliminates that possibility, making the conclusion not possible

Also terrible stupid question

Chose B because I was kind of clueless as to what was going on. B is actually super similar to the correct answer, and I sensed that we don't know what came first. But stimulus does not address anything about chronology, so B is wrong

E is correct because stimulus as I realized, did not talk about chronology, so we do not actually know who influenced who. This question is tough because it actually blocks off the path to a more obvious flaw where they were both influenced by someone else.

Chose D, the trap answer. If placebo group consumed V-C and experiment group also took V-C, then it still doesn't remove the possibility that V-C has no inherent benefit since both groups see no difference in severity. The answer choice explanation hovers on the whether placebo group took equal V-C than experiment group, but either way it does not matter A is the right answer in this case because it is the only choice that explains why two groups can have same severity of acne BECAUSE of beneficial impact of V-C.

A is the right answer in this case because it is the only choice that explains why two groups can have same severity of acne BECAUSE of beneficial impact of V-C.

Chose B, because it connects wise choices and emotions. BUT we need to connect wise choices with unchanged TENDENCIES of emotions, so the control is irrelevant.

A is wrong, repeats premise. C is wrong because lessons of history is irrelevant. D is wrong because range of choices does not have to base on emotions alone.

E is correct. When doing necessary assumption I need to learn the lesson to be really clear on the EXACT premises, not just the key word. E connects wiser choices with the change in emotional dispositions (tendencies).

The conclusion says that well intentioned attempts are usually unjustified, so the answer should be something that strengthens. A only rephrase the opposite of the conclusion, that only if intend to produce best outcome should get involved.

Recognizing this is a STRENGTHEN not MSS question is very important, making eliminating answer choices much easier. D and E are appealing, but D is eliminated because it does not take a side on whether it is justified. D is not false but does not strengthen. E does strengthen because if not success not justified is another premise that strengthens.

In the hardest kind of parallel questions, there should be no one option that can be eliminated because it "looks" wrongChose A, even though I understood the flaw as that the subset cannot do it all, I fell for the similar conclusion shape for the option, that A did not cause B. But looking into the premise you can see that high interest rate not always harmful is not the same structure as high interest rate cannot cause all that harm

Correct B, this answer choice is SO elusive. The key is understanding that the "two of us" is functionally the same as all the diseases. B is right because it says each can fix but neither can fix all, therefore cannot fix. Even though A (I can fix and you can fix), A cannot cause B (fix apartment). not one A (either one person) can do the whole B (fix apartment)

Tough tough tough questions but hopefully next one gets better

chose B, which looks decent on its own. But it is wrong because clearly discernable is a stretch. We are only told that there is vested interest, not how obvious that is

C in comparison is a lot more precise. circumstances potentially affecting is the vested interest. I was able to identify the flaw from the stimulus as discrediting the speaker, but just needed to be more careful with how the lsat phrase those answers

Chose A, because in the analogy the babies are disproven empirically. However, the conclusion only says that the anecdotal evidence should not be trusted, not that it is entirely false.

B is correct because this describes the reporting bias, that medical staff are less likely to remember if it did not happen. the option is just phrased weridly so it takes a few more seconds to process and realize it is identical to the baby case

One of those questions where every answer feels wrong. Chose C, which is obviously wrong because we are only discussing high school teenagers not those with jobs

I don't buy E because the rise in region surrounding is something completely made up by the answer choice. BUT, following the question stem, IF TRUE, provides the MOST support. Meaning if the phenomenon does happen, seeing decline in Granville with rise everywhere else is enough to strengthen. All other answer choices are bogus, this one is just a little better, but this is LSAT so welp...

The section's assumption questions are hellish

wrong B, which was the answer choice I predicted :(This is a comparative answer choice on machines rather than detergents. I didn't read carefully and instead just made it up in my brain.

Correct D, there are two necessary assumptions in this question, which I didn't immediately realize.

Premise: powder does not dissolve

Conclusion: to clean must use special detergent

Must assume that special detergent dissolves AND that dissolve = clean. D satisfies this second part

The correct answer is super confusingly phrased according to my interpretation. The flaw is that each group only compared sparkle to one other soda, which doesn't mean they don't have another favorite soda. concluding that people liked sparkle better than all other soda tested is flaw because it could just be mediocre. A is right because the generalization is that most liked sparkle better in the whole does not mean that most liked sparkle in each five group.

This is a case where perceived flaw is different from the answer choice, important to either eliminate wrong answers or to be more open minded

Chose D, very similar to the correct answer! Wrong because it is the wrong logic: false expectation --> unlikely to watch does not mean if other ad used --> will watch, because we do not know any thing about the other ad (producer's)

Correct B. When cannot predict answer, flag and move on then come back please.

Premise: grossly misrepresent, false expectation will not continue watching

Conclusion: the other ad would have been betterRequire assumption that the other ad does not misrepresent or does not give false expectation

Chose C, this is a classic case of rushing through a question. Should've flagged and come back after realizing its confusing. C is wrong because how different or different in what way doesn't impact the argument. The premise simply says the biography doesn't talk about it.

Correct E, SLOW DOWN on assumption questions!!!!!! Sit and analyze the argument. Conclusion says biography doesn't talk about what is interesting, the premise says it does not explain what is different about shakespeare. Two statements equate different with interesting, so go and find the answer that connects the dots.

Chose B, incorrect because we are comparing the before after of people who attended, so it is irrelevatn what the below average people did

E, correct but I talked myself out of it. I thought expending a great amount of time organizing their activities is not strong enough to show why they are not efficient, because I thought spending the time to be organized does not mean they cannot be more efficient later on. typical overthinking because this is not a must be true question

Chose D, incorrect because ostrich CAN EVENTUALLY bring five times does not mean an average farm will

Correct A, simple math, start up cost is above cattle farms, which use more cattles and more land, meaning the birds must cost more

Chose C, incorrect because I thought the flaw is in the two averages being of different measures. It doesnt matter what other family's income is if Anderson is average

Correct D, it is important to realize that yes the flaw is in the measures, but that it is in the measure of time. One is five years one is last year, which does not account for the rest of the years that could have made a difference.

Chose B

Incorrect because there was no discovery of basal'ts magnetic properties. Instead, it was a discovery of "odd magnetic variations." The AC uses attractive language to distract from the right answer

Correct C

I did not originally choose this because I did not know if there were 2 discoveries. However, note how third sentence of first paragraph says "first," which suggests there is a second, naturally the second paragraph.

Overall, missed this main point because I didn't realize that the theory was the for ocean floor spreading, not to account for the magnetic stripes. Instead, the stripes were used as evidence to support the theory.

Sufficient assumption Q

Cummings --> against regimentation

metaphor --> Language --> regimentation

----

Cummings --> against own work

own work --> metaphor --> regimentation

connect work to metaphor: B

Chose C

Was looking for an answer choice that they disagree over whether articles will succeed. Could not find an option for that and started looking for comments on social customs. C is wrong because although it mention social customs, it assumes they do not support articles. Babson thinks people WILL support, therefore assumption is premature.

Correct D

I hated this answer because it's hard to process. "People's attitudes toward tipping" = social customs, meaning the AC says whether "social customs" suggest success. Babson says yes, Cortez says no.

Chose A the attractive wrong answer lol

When seeing difficult wording, really need to slow down and juggle with the concepts. Disregard all of the misrepresent part, think about about is the "consequence of parking tickets" and the "intrinsic value of parking tickets." Realize that there is no such comparison between those.

Correct E

You already know from reading that this is false dichotomy, so superior implies an inferior, meaning there are two being compared.

hmm, I got this one wrong.

Chose C because I thought if the facility is not intended, then it increases the risk of the fault. However it already prefaced what could happen to the proposed facility in a thousand years, meaning its intention has no relevance.

ABC all involved random comparisons. D has always which is a red flag and also doesn't mention influence.

This was a confusing read but I got it right. The key is realizing that the two premises are completely separate and both are sufficient to prove the conclusion. D is the only one with two independent premises.