This question and reference to the passage is somewhat misleading (by intent of the LSAT writers I am sure).

However, what is most confusing is that the answer references a decision upheld by one case in 1986 and in 1991. Though no connection between the 1986 case and 1991 case was established other than a loosely worded phrase "A similar suit".

Can someone explain how the case from 1986's decision was meant to also uphold the case result from the 1991 decision?

AC E does not really reconcile this for me.

Of course, B, C, D all do not check out.

Please provide some feedback

@Sanique Rowe Hello,

Thank you for your detailed response.

All of my core curriculum practice is toggled to not be included. I would like to be able to include all of this as it is a better representation of where I stand going into the actual "Practice" and "Pre-exam" phases of the study plan. Otherwise, I feel like my progress I am making in comprehension of this material is not being measured over the past 9 weeks I have been studying the theory.

Does this make sense? Or, would including this information introduce a false analysis of where I stand?

I feel like 7sage adjusts the difficulty of the questions based on goal score.

I am seeing some commentary on here for 1 and 3 star questions.

I had 2 and above with mostly 3 to 5 star questions.

Is this the case for others?

What is interesting is that Question 12 in this drill assists you in completing Question 8 in that it emphasizes a striking difference between Lum's poetry and As.Am. poetry. Markedly the search for new identity being the primary theme of this passage.

Although I will say, the part of P1 where the passage states "Lum offers no romanticized notions of multicultural life in Hawaii, and while he does explore themes of family, identity, history, and literary tradition, he does not do so at the expense of attempting to discover and retain a local sensibility..."

The "he does not do so" line threw me off and I left AC A wide open and did not choose it initially. Slow down and be careful.

I had two passages in this drill. 4 and 5 star passages.

Both read very steadily and understood them. Some of the 5 star questions seemed easier than the 2 and 3 star questions. 10/16 initial pass. 13/16 Blind Review. I was 50/50 and chose the wrong answer on the 3 I got wrong and the other 3 I was just lost because I messed up the question stem interpretation.

Kevin is a beast. The most logically sound instructor I have ever had through bachelors and masters level education (including a semester at MIT). @Kevin Lin 2

42/46 not bad. lets roll.

40/48

A couple of these threw me off at first but then the patterns started jumping out. Truly appreciate these rapid-fire exercises. It solidifies the skill that much more.

These lessons are incredible.

However, I see so many gaps in my ability with NA because of it. haha. This is probably the most difficult concept for me and has been throughout my entire study journey.

Thank you for bringing more clarity to this challenge.

I really enjoyed this exercise. The patterns jump out immediately when presented this way. Thanks, team.

@Nickgigs PSA usually emphasizes the principle of reasoning, where SA emphasizes the conclusion. At least this is a pattern I see.

SA: The conclusion of the argument follows logically if...

SA: The arguments conclusion is properly drawn if...

SA: The critic's conclusion follows logically if...

SA: Which one of the following, if assumed, allows the conclusion...

PSA: Which one of the following principles most helps...

PSA: Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps...

@elbicho what's with all the aggression? This is a learning platform.

@nmd19 okay. But the stim does not say that it was. It is hypothesizing that it could. I would suggest meeting with a tutor, because it seems the semantics of this test are a pain point (which they are for everyone). best of luck.

Physical sensation is derived from cognitive functions, so, this question separating the two as if physical and cognitive are separate makes this much more difficult to answer than a typical 3 star question. I would argue this is more of a 4 star question. How would one assume that physical pleasure and intellectual stimulation are operating separately and not simultaneously? This is where this AC deepens the mystery.

Through POE you can get here because the other ACs just aren't even close. However, this correct AC is a stretch that weakly bifurcates cognition into two domains when cognition is intertwined. I truly feel like the LSAT writer did a synonym search for the word cognitive and intellectual popped up. haha.

@CaseClosed use latin analysis. deleterious. Delete = to destruct. conducive. conducere = to lead. to make possible.

@visschdawg still there hahaha

@nmd19 You cannot assume "it is likely that air pollution eradicated these diseases" to be the same as "air pollution eradicated these diseases." This is not what the argument says. The argument presents a hypothesis. We are strengthening the likeliness that this hypothesis could be right. How would you strengthen the hypothesis that air pollution "eradicates" plant diseases? The diseases return when air pollution subsides.

@nmd19 It is D because if air pollution was the cause for the removal of the plant diseases, then when air pollution decreases, the plant diseases should return. This strengthens the hypothesis posed.

Said another way:

If the plant diseases did return upon air pollution decreasing, the argument is strengthened.

@johnigarzabal722 A is saying the exact opposite. A is stating that because people are stealing cars and they're not abandoning the car is why convictions are more likely. The amount auto thieves abandon has decreased.

@aleiapierre123 not a tutor but what you just said is precisely why E does not follow.

If the work place for a house cleaner is a home, then the law could be interpreted in such a way where secondhand smoke would impact people (house cleaners) in the workplace (a home). E says the opposite that the law WILL protect domestic workers from secondhand smoke. We cannot support this because the interpretation is unclear.

I hope this is helpful. Keep at it!!!

@allyldh The rules apply as follows:

Top programmers don't work together - they work alone (D is the answer that fails the rule laid out in Jo's argument). Sub par programmers work together.

All the other answers are consistent because two programmers are working together who are sub-par (they do not fit into the carve out that Jo suggests).

D is correct because if it were true that the best programmers do not work together, then why would THE top performing programmer be working with someone? They wouldn't. They would be working alone.

@Sanique Rowe Thank you!

Also, for anyone else who may see this...

If you go to LSAT Prep services subpage from the LawHub page you are directed to, from 7sage, you will be able to renew before your expiration. It does not link directly from the prompt on 7sage to your profile error message. A bit of a workaround I found when I did some digging after this general question post.

Good luck!!!

Okay so this may have been a really bad approach, but I got this right and kept under time by 38 seconds.

I read the stimulus and saw the first conditional

More Consumers -> Profits increase

Took note of second conditional

Decrease in COL guarantees More consumers

Then I immediately negated the last conditional in my head and went hunting. No diagramming.

A goes against the conditional chain

B is correct

C would be false

D We do not know this for sure.

E This would be the trick set by the ", and" in the second conditional

After watching the video, I became slightly confused on how to map this in a diagram.