This is the only question I missed in this section. I am struggling to go along with the concept that a play labeled an "ancient Greek play" sufficiently tells us that the play is conveying a scene from that place and time. For example, if a play was written in the US this year and the setting was Spain in the sixteenth century, I believe it would still be proper to refer to that play as a modern American play.

Alternatively, if Demosthenes had been referred to as an "Ancient Greek X" (presumably the X would be a knight, but anything works), I think that would've been evidence enough.

I understand that this is a "most justified" question as opposed to a "properly inferred" question. I suppose I just thought the size of the inference needed was larger than usual. I was between A and D, and was at a loss because I thought they were both poor answers.

The day I learn to thoroughly read the question stem (never) its over for the LSAT

Bad grammar in the last paragraph and probably throughout--but I'm just typing into the void to work through the logic as a study tool.

Maybe this will help someone in 6 years.

This stimulus clicked relatively easily for me compared to other arguments that are written with (what feels like) the goal of confusing the test taker. The solid comprehension made AC A stick out without much thought.

I understood the statisticians to be talking about a theory, instead of something to be practiced. They decided to spend their day answering the question "Guys, what are the absolute surest set of parameters to increase overall correctness in a set of a person's beliefs?" And they came up with this "discard and never add" concept.

Then the argument comes in and is like "hold up you're wrong, use that set of parameters and face eventual death, dumb statisticians."

But the argument isn't recognizing that they're just doing a thought experiment to solve how to best INCREASE OVERALL CORRECTNESS IN BELIEFS. That's the single thing that they cared about today when they sat in a circle and came to a consensus on this theory. They decided that any effects that come from creating the most efficient parameters isn't the point of the thought experiment.

If the stats homies' parameters to maximize overall correctness in someone's beliefs cause this theorized perfect-belief person's wife to leave them at the altar, doesn't matter? Did the specific combo of beliefs cause WW3? The stats guys still don't care. The argument is pointing to something that isn't the one question they're trying to answer in a vacuum.

I think E is a major red flag because, if you diagramed wrong and thought migration was sufficient, it would be a MBT (or at least pseudo-MBT depending on how you interpret "accompanied"). I can't recall any MSS correct answer choices that are MBT (They may exist but they aren't common).

I was between A and C for a minute while doing this question as part of a timed PT. I landed on C because of the word "some" as opposed to A's usage of "most".

For me, this question was a good reinforcement that often does not equate to most. Lebron scores 30 often in a game but he doesn't score 30 most games.

this being posted 3 weeks ago is just.. chefs kiss

I had the same thought. I'm having a tough time figuring out when there is an "object" in the predicate v. when the would-be object is simply a modifier.