@LSATgoat Last sentence first paragraph.

Just because the newspaper cannot cover ALL/EVERY (100) stories adequately on both sides, it could cover SOME (20) important adequately on both sides.

The difference is that the premises says every one, not any.

@J.Y. Ping Sorry, I meant it as a joke as in there's no resting on the LSAT grind lol.

@Tumptytumtoes It doesn't talk about Modern art, it just says that she was an early modernist. A person practicing modernism is a modernist.

I know both "rest" and "day" but what does "rest day" mean? Resting a whole day??

@babachanianaren905 I think you mean active lawyer. Not all JDs are active lawyers. Many law professors don't have a bar license, or it expired since they didn't do required CLEs.

@David Kindberg So apparently modern is a style of art like "classical, romantic, rennaissance, abstract etc". While contemporary is saying "artists currently alive".

@trniekras572 Well it's still looking at the % within each group. So even if one group had 10000, it's still 20% so 2000 ppl. Whereas 36% of 100 would be 36. The sheer difference in number doesn't mean anything since you are comparing the "effectiveness" rate within each group. If you're measuring "effectiveness" based on self-reports than you would have to compare the % of what each group says.

Whereas C) is basically saying you can't compare these two groups, because it's not a difference in each group but instead it's one big group and you just have quitters. It basically means you don't actually have an experimental group vs. control group, because your experimental group is just quitters from the control group or vice versa.

@abramyansemail505 It's because it doesn't talk about the public perception anywhere. So even if the author thinks this is the best way to address judicial impartiality, the public may still see it differently. Since we don't know we can say that it will improve public perception

@JackHilton The negation test is usually used for Necessary assumptions, this is a sufficient assumption. Negating sufficient assumptions don't always produce the correct answer.

For example, Bob can buy a $20 pizza. A) Bob has $1000 in the bank. This answer is suffcient to the stim.

If we negate A), then we get Bob doesn't have $1000 in the bank, but that doesn't destroy the arguement. Because Bob could have $200, satisifying the negation test while not destroying the stim.

@nnechi95

P1 Contra: If math prop > not proven by obs

P2 Contra: if possible to know if true > not math prop

But P2 is not actually a premise, it's a conclusion because the stim says "It follows that..." which is basically "Therefore", a conclusion indicator. So if you see it as the conclusion, do you see the jump from:

Premise: If math prop > not proven by obs (A > B)

Conclusion: If math prop > not possible to know (A > C)

So what they are trying to say is A > B > C therefore A > C. So that means the missing link is B > C. Which would be: " if not proven by obs > not possible to know" or "if possible to know > proven by obs".

E) is saying exactly "if you want to know, then you need to prove by obs" because of the indicator "requires". Which fits the gap above.

@Jsonf Yeah after discussion with others I have come to understand it as "Modern age" as the style of art like "Classical" or "Romantic", while contemporary is the time and age of an artist. So you can be a contemporary classical artist if you are alive making art in the classical style.

@haksyona I think the passage mentioned Mali artists to show that they don't really have a concept of fake through the traditional sense of "imitation of an original work", as long as it holds the same function.

@Jsonf But it says modern age of faking began during the Italian Renaissance in which Michelangelo was apart of. If it says modern age faking, can you not infer from that it is contemporary?

So doesn't it say that modern day faking began with Michelangelo and that he inspired imitators? Would an artist from the modern age of faking not be contemporary??

Looking back now, E makes the most sense. If the splitters primarily cared about preserving a variety of species, they would focus on endangered ones. The most endangered species would be the ones grouped in by others, like if 100 golden egg laying geese were bundled up with 1 million Candadian geese as one species, they'd want to split them first in order to save the golden geese.

Whereas if there were 500k of the gray and black sparrow each, because neither of them are individually endangered, they would not prioritize them. Hence, despite should've been split, they aren't.

Which means all the species being split are the ones endangered, therefore more protected species.

I thought the difference was in market reaction speed, very fast in A and much slower (due to manipulation in B), hence a digital camera vs. old fim.

This is insane, I missed the "FOR"!!!!!

@Claire KIM Why did you just copy someone else's comment lol, and just half of it.

@lukerldavis280 No, for a valid inference we need A -s-> B -> C to get to A -s-> C. So in this case:

/eccentric -s-> effective -> good com

therefore,

/eccentric -s-> good com.

Some noneccentric are good communicators. The answers don't have this but it is a valid inference.

It's insane I didn't see the word unsurprising....

@lsattaker264 Yes but we don't know if there are other Spanish Ballards that also deal with border regions, perhaps in the 1500s there was a popular ballard that was mainly about Spain and Portugal, where the Mexicans got their inspiration from. The issue is the passage doesn't talk about its uniqueness among ballards.

E) is correct because we know there are suviving complete corridos, which means there are ones that are surviving but not complete, and we still know they are corridos. Otherwise the only corridos known to us would be the "complete" ones and we wouldn't need to distinguish between "complete" and "incomplete".

I thought of this as businesses are buying 60% of new cars, which means individuals are buying 40%. Only the rich individuals can afford cars so that's only 5% of their income. While 25 years ago indviduals were buying 80% of the new cars, and even the non-rich could afford cars so on average it was like 20% of the average income. This suggests that in the current age, only rich could afford cars and therefore the average price to income ratio actually decreases.

I chose E but in BR I thought I caught the flaw, which was it said that Roehmer's always been impartial but her column is just to please her loyal readers. Now that I read it as I type it, I realize that maybe her loyal readers are impartial readers...

@vwillman1 I think if it were a strength, it wouldn't do much. It's just saying that some people didn't eat it, doesn't say whether or not some people did eat it. Nor does it relate to mercury poisoning causing venereal.