I just realized why I struggled so much with this question like many other ones because I misread the stimulus. It sucks that sometimes my understanding is an entirely different thing.

Anyways, I thought what the stimulus is saying is that nowadays, if you steal a car, you commit a crime/go to jail, but 5 years ago it was less likely car theft would be considered a crime.

That is why when I read it for the first time, I found it weirder than all other weird stimuli. okay fine, lsat has weird questions, but to the extent that says car theft wasn't a crime? well maybe, but not for this question.

But what the stimulus is actually saying is that car theives are more likely to be caught nowadays than it was five years ago.

I hate this question with every cell in my body!

I am going to break down the stimulus and question stims to make sense out of it.

A recent study of 5,000 individuals found, on the basis of a physical exam, that more than 25 percent of people older than 65 were malnourished, though only 12 percent of the people in this age group fell below government poverty standards. In contrast, a greater percentage of the people 65 or younger fell below poverty standards than were found in the study to be malnourished.

The stimulus is telling us that:

• A study was done recently

• It was on the basis of physical exam

• There were 5,000 participants in the study

• The participants consisted of two groups: people over 65 (65+) & people younger than 65(65-)

What were the finding for 65+?

• More than 25% of them were found to be malnourished

  But

• Only 12% were below poverty line.

What were the finding for 65-?

It was the opposite

• % of those below poverty line > % of those malnourished

Why the numbers are flipped between these two groups ( 65+ and 65-)?

The Question Stim offers 4 ACs that support why the numbers are flipped. However, we are asked to find the one AC that does not offer any support/explanation for why the number is flipped:

A. explains the discrepancy

Doctors's misdiagnosing the malnutrition in 65+ means that the data generated is not accurate. It could be the same % for both groups

B. explains the discrepancy

65+ takes medications and need more nutrients comapred to 65-. That is why their number is higher in regards to mulnutrition

C. explains the discrepancy

65+ suffer from loss of appetite than 65-. Loss of appetite leads to not eating enough and therefore lacking nutrients and mulnutrition

D. Does NOT explain the discrepancy

It comapres the likelihood of the two groups falling into poverty line, saying that less 65- falls under poverty line than do 65+. It still does not explain why the rate for malnutrition is flipped between the two groups.

E. explains the discrepancy

65- have less medical conditions that interfere with digestion compared to 65+. That means their body absorb the nutrients better and thus less mulnutritioned.

sharkologist😂

@mcarmona001 At the top left of the page, below the lesson's title, there is an option that says " Show question". You can click on that and it shows the question with all ACs. Screenshot below:

The stimulus says " Several prominent politicians" while the AC says " The promoinent politicians".

There is a superset of prominent politicians and there is a subset of these prominent politicians who now been shown to be involved in a conspiracy that turned into a serious scandal.

The stimulus is talking about the subset, and not mentioning anything about superset, but the AC A points to the whole set of prominent politicians meaning the superset.

That was the only reason I did not choose A not even in BR becasue I was confident that would be confusing superset with subset. I am desperately looking for an explanation. It is not fair :(

@lawshosh Thanks for sharing that!

I also find it more helpful watching the videos. I usually read the summary at the end of the reading after watching the video since it captures the main points of the lesson, and I think it helped me to better remember the concepts.

@BMago I see now. Thank you for the clarification!!

So does properly inferred means must be true?

This was such a stupid question! Nothing worked to get the right answer

@NoNamed92 Thank you for the clarification! I appreciate it :)

This question was tricky. When I read Sklar's statement, I missed the part" teaching chess " and I chose the wrong answer.

It is like there was a part of Talbert's conversation that was not included, and that is " children should be taught to play chess". Instead, it is pointed out by Sklar and we must infer that " teaching chess to children" is what Talbert agreed with and now Sklar is saying that she does not agree with.

Wait, so we are assuming that higher body temperature also means higher retina temperature?

I did not choose B because I thought that would be a big assumption to make.

omg I literally went for the pencil war answer choice haha

oh my god, what was this

JY was about to say Table kiV lols

I used to read the text and watch the videos in the foundation section. It helped me to better understand and remember. But now, I am skipping the reading and only watching the vids. Not because I am in a rush, but because the text does not have the stimulus and starts vague and plus I think it is too repetitive with the stimulus.

I am not sure how others do it , and what do you find to be the most effective way?

@GavinSchuerch It makes sense. I guess I was too focused on the practical use of it.

" I guess a drunk tourist always better" hahah

So, if E was stated as " ...in at least some landfills" instead of " ...any landfill", then would it be correct?

One issue with D is that it says " ...in the course of time" which means future. So it is saying that X is going to be virulent in the future ( because no antibiotic now on the market can elimintate it), but we don't know what is going to happen. Maybe tomorrow, someone is gonna find a new antibiotic or method to eliminate X.

Is Stem short for Stimulus?

but why there is an e instead of i ?

I wish all questions on LSAT were as easy as this one

which legislators are we taking about in AC D? The ones who present legislation in polemical terms OR the colleagues of the same ligislators who show repugnance or enthusiasm for the legislation?

I am glad at least I'm gradually understanding what these kinds of questions are asking for.

What helped me to see why E is the correct AC was putting it before the conclusion of the argument, and the argument made sense.

Original Argument:

Astorga's campaign promises are apparently just an attempt to please voters. Support What she says she will do if elected mayor is simply what she has learned from opinion polls that voters want the new mayor to do. Therefore, voters are not being told what Astorga actually intends to do if she becomes mayor.

Now read it with AC E added:

Astorga's campaign promises are apparently just an attempt to please voters. Support What she says she will do if elected mayor is simply what she has learned from opinion polls that voters want the new mayor to do. Astorga does not actually intend, if elected, to do what she has learned from the public opinion polls that voters want the new mayor to do. Therefore,voters are not being told what Astorga actually intends to do if she becomes mayor.

Without E, the arugment's conclusion is vague and does not make sense. It is like missing a step.