This one is really hard for two reasons. 1) A tempting answer choice, and 2) a very uncommon type of correct answer choice. A common rookie mistake on the LSAT is attacking the argument by denying the premises and not accepting them to be true. We're told the key to the LSAT is accepting the premises to be true and attack how the author gets from the premise to the conclusion. On my first pass, I immediately eliminated D because I felt that it was committing this rookie mistake. I was wrong. I got this wrong on BR too and was pissed when I saw two stupid little red X's. I watched the video and read some explanations, but what really helped me understand this question was when I realized that by accepting D as the answer, we are saying that the studies (premises) for the conclusion are weak, not false. By choosing D, we're not saying the two later studies are invalid or bad studies. It's that they provide weak support for the conclusion the author makes: "if the night-lights cause nearsightedness, the effect disappears with age."

E is annoying. I think more people would've gotten it right if they used "some" instead of several. Several, like some, is ambiguous in that it could be only 1 or 2, or it could be more; one of my least favorite parts about the LSAT. This question is one of those instances where you really have to stay firm in your understanding of what those quantifier words really mean.

As someone who has been studying as long as you have, my biggest mistake in studying was signing up for a test I wasn't prepared for. Last year I signed up for the June and August test, and it set me back at least 4 months and I burned through tens of drills trying to be ready before June. If you cannot say to yourself (based on your recent PT scores) that I am ready for this exam, I highly recommend not signing up. For some people, it motivates them and helps their studies when they have a date to work toward, but I found that both times I signed up prematurely I was studying stressed, having self-confidence issues, focusing on “test-taking strategies," etc. All of which set me back immensely. Don't worry about how long it takes. Once you get your goal score, the time it took will be irrelevant. Keep pushing !

"This question is actually very very cookie cutter"

I enjoyed the SA fast track lesson. I've been studying for 6+ months now and gave this video a listen this evening and found it to be an insightful "refresher" I didn't know I needed. Would love to see a similar video for flaw questions !!

#feedback #pleasehelp

If answer choice B said, "In many surveys, most people DO name high salary as the most desirable feature of a job" would this be a weakener? I understand why B is wrong but I want to be clear on exactly why it's wrong. It's pretending to attack the premise because it's trying to say the opposite of what the survey data is saying in the premise. This makes sense to me. But, by that reasoning wouldn't this make answer choice A in PT 114.2.12 a correct answer (since it's an except question)? I've linked that question below.

After running into 114.2.12 yesterday, I remembered this question from my wrong answer journal and felt I may have misunderstood J.Y. 's explanation. If someone could clarify this for me I would really appreciate it!

#feedback

https://7sage.com/question/PT114.S2.Q12

Ahhh I see. Answer choice B isn't trying to explain for the entire conditional chain, but simply one world where a piece of the chain is true. Thank you for clearing this up.

Hey Kevin, thank you for your reply. I really appreciate all you do and your explanations are God sent.

My issue is with the third part of the stimulus where you apply the group 3 negate sufficient rule. I understand the rule and its application here: If the profits do increase, then the traffic congestion must have decreased. But this is a must be true question. Answer choice B, "If the cost of living in the downtown area decreases, the profits of downtown businesses will increase" assumes that the traffic congestion has decreased or has gone unchanged. I get how when we apply the rule it can be connected to our chain we built for the question, but does this really make sense? How can the cost of living by itself ensure an increase in profits if the last sentence in the argument says that we WILL NOT have an increase in profits UNLESS traffic goes down? We don't know if traffic increased, decreased, or stayed the same based on answer choice B, so how does this answer "have to be true" based on the stimulus? I fear I may be too critical of the arguments or my approach to the question is all wrong...

Thank you again and I hope this clarifies my confusion.

#Help The way I read the last sentence of the stimulus is that for there to be profits, the traffic congestion must decrease. For B to be correct we must be assuming traffic congestion has decreased, because the stimulus says profits WILL NOT increase UNLESS traffic congestion decreases. I don't see how you can interpret the negation for this statement and just tack it on at the end. I see how it's a better answer choice than the rest, but I don't understand how it is right. Is there something in the stimulus before the last sentence that indicates traffic congestion will decrease? Cost of living can increase, but profits CANNOT increase unless congestion decreases. Can someone clear this up for me?