I have nothing helpful. Just saying that my bf walked in on me listening to the explanation for this and now thinks the LSAT is so rigid and all encompassing, that it also tests on the behavior or monkeys and their predators.

It's too early for you to be considering this when you have not taken the November LSAT yet.

Take it, and see how you feel about it. When I take a prep text with accommodations time, I always do like 5 points better at least.

If you take it, and still feel you may have done poorly, then consider taking the January LSAT. However, rember you still can't guarantee a better score in January....plus your applications will be later.

I feel like the best course of action would be to apply as soon as your November LSAT scores are in. Otherwise they will be later, but only possibly with a better score. So you would be trading the actual benefits of an earlier app for hypothetical benefits.

Does that make sense? Potentially if you wait, you could be turning in a late January app with a score that's not even improved.

@Ramisul17 I feel like that's an example of over thinking...which can get you into trouble. Your hypothesis about leaking oil perhaps causing air pollution would require independent knowledge not presented in the statement. That's not the LSAT's style which is to rely on the statement and basic common sense.

And since it is only about "air pollution", not pollution in general....we can assume exhaust is the only thing to cause air pollution from a car. An idle car causing pollution to the air is not something the average person would know....we all know a running car creates exhaust which of course going into the air.

A lot of his explanation for why AC A is wrong is irrelevant. We KNOW tht pre-1980 cars create 30% of local [pollution because that's in the statement. So, it doesnt matter what percent of them are driven or not.

Choosing this one would require denying stats in the statement that we have to take as true because that's how the LSAT works. If we assumed every stated facts would be lies, the whole test would be bedlam lol

@jamespatricksawyer639 It never says every government official at the convention is a party member.

SOME delegates are gov officials and therefore party members. Only some. Therefore other gov officials must not be delegates, which means they don't have to be party members.

It's only the delegates that we know are ALL party members.

@cappelldaniel400 Not true. You didn't need to know that independently. It says it in P2: Such substances undoubtedly first appeared, and new ones continue to appear, as the result of genetic mutations in individual plants".

The author says UNDOUBTEDLY. So regardless of if it is true IRL, the author thinks it's absolute that the substances are the result of genetic mutations Genetic mutations are not natural selection....they are not a "direct response" to insects. The genetic mutation being helpful to the plant's survival is what made it survive...that is the definition of natural selection.

The LSAT doesn't give questions that require independent knowledge of a subject...other than knowing how to read of course.

@Conner Kline The passage doesn't cover all other ballad forms in the world. We do not know if the corrido is unique period.  And we certainly don't know if the familiar language is what makes them unique. Like the explanation lecture says, surely some other ballads also use familiar language to locals. 

@sammywammy123 No, it's wrong because the text literally says the despedida will have 2 variable lines carrying the name of the corrido and its subject. So most corridos cannot have the same despedida...otherwise most would be about the same subject and have the same title.

Ugh. I didn't like any of these answers but I didn't focus on the question being "the MOST support". not "DEFINITIVE support".

I chose B because I over thought the details of "El Corrido de Kiansis" (c. 1870) being the OLDEST COMPLETE corrido, yet the beginning said they had been around since 1836....so to me that implied all corridos between 1836-1869 were incomplete so maybe that supported the statement in B....that most were not complete. I don't think LSAT questions ever rely on that level of tricky numerical detail though, so I should've known it was wrong.

I didn't like C because of the extreme language of "ALL corridos"....yet technically "SOME lines in COMMON" is not extreme because in common doesnt neccessarily mean the exact same, but the text references "ready made lines" and "relies heavily in familiar language."

If I would've focused on the use of "importantly" in the text, it should've been a cue that C was correct. There is most support for C.