Am I the only one who got tripped up by the fact that the author never explicitly states that he believed Stalin was a tyrant? Especially because he describes him as "extraordinary." I know he's a tyrant, you know he's a tyrant, but it never explicitly states that the author believes that.

I guess this is just another one of those questions that is exempt from what was presented as the all-encompassing rule to NEVER make assumptions. :(

I chose AC C because the verbiage lined up and it seemed to require fewer assumptions, but in getting too analytical with my response the largest point against AC C blew right over my head!

If political stability is the MOST important thing to consider when it comes to expanding operations, then why would the chairman even be discussing it at all? If political stability were the most important qualification for expansion and they were well aware that these countries were unstable, why would there be need any consideration at all? Much less further consideration.

You Try - Symptoms of Mental Illnesses -

Now that, JY, I have been trying.

#HELP Why wouldn't it be Neptune? The black swan is the one that disproved the white swan theory; By JY's own reasoning, the planet analogous would be the one that disproved Newton's laws. However, the planet that most directly caused the rejection of Newton's laws was Neptune?

If it weren't for Neptune, the discovery of Mercury would have SUPPORTED Newton's laws. The gravitational pull from Neptune is what called into question their understanding of gravity - thus enters Einstein's laws of general relativity.

They were still abiding by Newton's laws to find the dang planet Mercury.... (although this would be an outside assumption that wouldn't be brought into the reasoning of finding the correct AC, just wanted to note it)

I fully understand by B is correct...but am I crazy in thinking that late=overdue? This test has required us to make far more elaborate assumptions than that in correct ACs.

Little key I made for myself:

PSA (LR Q#8) All Types: Prescriptive vs. Morally Descriptive Language

• When/ When not to conflate the two is very tricky!

• Often, wrong answer choices will use morally descriptive language in place of prescriptive

  • Seems correct, but is actually a trap answer

When to translate prescriptive to morally descriptive:

• When stimulus makes prescriptions based on moral judgements

  • Ex. Do not prank disabled individuals

    • Here, answers that are morally descriptive could be correct

When NOT to translate prescriptive to morally descriptive:

• When stimulus has nothing to do with morality at all

  • Ex. Do not forget to brush your teeth

    • Here, answers that are morally descriptive COULD NOT be correct

    • Brushing/not brushing arouses no moral judgements

Okay, here's my attempt at explaining why E is wrong.

While at the surface it seems to explain why TV executives devalue views as compared to Movie execs (duh! if the viewer's aren't paying, who cares how many there are!), it fails to account for the modern system of monetization.

Even though the viewer no longer pays out of pocket, "free" content is only free to us because advertisers pay per "CPM" (or $ per 1k views). So, this doesn't explain why execs wouldn't care about # of views. They're still paid per view, just from a third party.

Little note I made for myself that hopefully might help someone out there:

"Given its tone and content, from which one of the following was the passage most likely drawn?"

This is, by far, one of the dumbest question types in RC

• Hopefully, very rare

• Best bet is two-pronged approach:

  1. Is this descriptively accurate?

     • Ex. AC B would be eliminated here

     • Basically, is this factually accurate description of the content

  2. Does the tone, writing style & quality match?

     1. Get in the headspace of the goblins that write this exam; assume anything written in non-scholarly or literary setting is dull asf and for simpletons

        • If passage is something anyone dumber than a box of rocks would have troubles reading, eliminate any non-scholarly and literary mediums (magazine, brochure, etc...)

  3. Hope, pray and POE

I love how the "Evaluate" portion of WSE is just....not explained, lol

Hmmm, what about examples for variants 1 and 2? ya know, the ones least elaborated upon

Here's my confusion regarding Answer Choice C:

Lets say a member who HAS rented more than 10 movies in the path month goes to the last location, let's call it the Walnut Lane location.

(10+ -> LL)

Let's say next time they go to the Main Street location, don't get the coupon, but later return for a 3rd visit to the Main Street Location. That time around, they would get the discount.

(10+ -> LL)

So, this member has successfully received the special discount code at more than one location!

I understand why it's not the choice here, but how on earth can JY claim this is an example of a "Must be False?"

Am I missing something?

I'm gathering that perhaps the most difficult part of the LSAT is knowing when to make inferences vs. knowing when to avoid traps set by inferences.

Trap 6: Attempting to chain "Some"s

• Remember: When two "some" statements are chained together, there are no valid conclusions to be drawn.

Ex.

• Some of USA's peaches come from Georgia. Some produce from GA is exported to Mexico. Therefore, some peaches are exported to Mexico.

• USAp --s-> GA --s-> Mx

  ____

  USAp <-s-> Mx

• This is NOT a valid conclusion; maybe only 1 peach is grown per year, and therefore the "some" produce that's exported doesn't happen to include that peach.

Trap 6: Attempting to chain "Most"s

• Remember: When two "most" statements are chained together, there are no valid conclusions to be drawn.

  • The ONLY instance in which two "most" claims can work together to draw a conclusion is when two "most" arrows come from the same set

    • A -m-> C

      A -m-> B

      ____

      C <-s-> B

Ex.

• Most of USA's peaches come from Georgia. Most produce from GA is exported to Mexico. Therefore, some peaches are exported to Mexico.

• A --m-> B --m-> C

  ____

  A <-s-> C

• This is NOT a valid conclusion; maybe, even though most USA peaches do come from GA, GA only produces 10% peaches and 90% other produce. So, those few, precious peaches stay in the US, while the rest is shipped out.

Ex.

• Most of USA's peaches come from Georgia. Most of USA's peaches are exported to Mexico. Therefore, at least some of the peaches sent to Mexico are GA peaches.

Here's an example I made for myself if it helps:

Trap 5: Swapping "some" and "all" arrows:

• Remember: a valid conclusion about intersecting sets can only be made if the some arrow appears before the all arrow.

Ex.

• Artists in the master class are painters. Some people who call themselves painters suck at art. Therefore, some artists in the master class suck at art.

• Art's -> Pnt's <-s-> Suck@it

  ____

  Art's <-s-> Suck@it

  • Thus is NOT valid

  • Again, just because the first set shares a characteristic with the second (painters), does not mean you can equate the two.

Ex.

• Some artists in the master class are painters. All people who paint suck at art. Therefore, some artists in the master class suck at art.

• Art's <-s-> Pnt's -> Suck@it

  ____

• Art's <-s-> Suck@it

• Here, we know 100% of the subset (painters) ALL share the quality we are discussing (sucking at it). So, we can easily conclude that the portion of artists in the class that are painters definitely suck at it.

Here's some examples I made for myself, hope this provides some clarity!

Trap 4: Swapping "most" and "all" arrows

• Remember: a valid conclusion about intersecting sets can only be made if the most arrow appears before the all arrow.

Ex.

• All wrestlers in the WMMA know how to fight. Most people who know how to fight suck at it. Therefore, some fighters in the WMMA suck at it

• WMMA -> F --m-> Suck@F

  ____

  WMMA <-s-> Suck@F

• The above is NOT a valid conclusion. The first set is not indicative of any other set, even if their qualities (fighting) overlap. So, that quality cannot be used to draw valid conclusions .

Ex.

• Most WMMA women know how to fight. All women who know how to fight are strong. Therefore, most WMMA women are strong.

• WMMA -m-> F -> S

  ____

  WMMA -m-> S

• The above conclusion IS valid

  • Remember, it's not "all most" chocolate is good, its "most all" chocolate is good

    • I don't want to "almost" ace the test, i want to get "most-all" questions correct

I think I have a much better way to explain why AC B is wrong:

I was coming at it thinking, "well, if the painting contains other real people, then the chances of this one guy being the painter are the same as the chances of any of the other real people depicted being the painter."

However, when you pause, take of your LSAT goggles, and just think logically (NOT lawgically) you see this: It's a historical painting of a real battle, so it follows that the 'real people from history' depicted will be real people who actually fought in that battle. So, if the painting depicts real soldiers and generals from that battle, why on earth would this random twerp be included? If anything, his inclusion would indicate that he did paint it, given that, although a real person in history, he was not one of the real people who fought in battle, and instead just a random self-absorbed painter who includes himself in his works.

Shallow Dip:

• Eliminate choices that do not match degree of certainty

  • Ex. If conclusion guarantees specific outcome, it can NEVER match an argument with a conclusion merely stating something is probable (and visa versa)

• Scan long answers to search for conclusion

  • Arguments must reach conclusion in the same way

• Look for same number of premises and conclusions

  • BUT, not necessarily in same order

• Look for same number of ideas in each argument part

• Look for logical terms that mean the same thing but might not be the same

  • Ex. Correct answer may use "usually" instead of "most", "assert" instead of "argue

    • BUT, essentially, logical terms that mean the same thing