2 stars for LSAC's mediocre question.

1) re AC B, a) there could have been a notable decline from a million to 10,000, leaving more quality books available than any publisher has time to review and b) when did intrinsic merit and quality become identical? What if a book has high quality but low intrinsic merit because of its capacity to foment a broad community discussion about a central topic in the book even without much intrinsic merit in the writing?

2) Re AC C, since publishers NOW know books of intrinsic value often make a sizable profit, their decision to curtail publication of those books argues against a profit motive, weakening the argument and making C a good choice.

3) Re AC E, if industry profits have been declining that could lead publishers to change tactics, reducing publication of books of intrinsic value in the interest of preserving their profit margin, and in so doing they could be just as interested in making money as they had been, not MORE interested, as the stimulus declares. They would merely be reacting to market forces with no change in their level of interest in making money, weakening the argument and making E a good choice.

I concede B may the best AC. But we have about 90 seconds to sort out this kind of horseshit. There should be one and only one clearly correct answer.

This is very helpful. I've been wondering what my stats on only PT's are. Now I know.

Given the life you're leading, working full time with a demanding job, and given you've spent a month on this adventure, I think your aspiration to a 170 in January is unrealistic. I think it would be unrealistic if you were independently wealthy and unemployed. I would delay law school application until next year if 170 is essential for your application.

I moved through the core curriculum quickly several months ago, not watching any of the videos -- and paid for that haste. I wound up referring to it frequently as it became clear to me by my wrong LR answers that I had not understood some important fundamentals. My time would have been more efficiently spent completing the core curriculum exactly as it's designed, at a reasonable pace, including most of the videos, really making sure I was comfortable and conversant with the concepts. It's a well designed, thoughtful program -- that's my 2 cents.

Go ahead and be nervous. It's fine. You can write a great exam while being nervous. But also keep in mind: the stakes for this test are extraordinarily low, because it's predictable, requires only your ability to think during the exam (which you absolutely can do), and you can take it repeatedly. I'm older than you (66), so I have that benefit of knowing from experience that there are lots and lots and lots of routes to law school, and lots of time to get where you want to go. That's why I think you should just take a few long slow deep breaths before each section starts and enjoy this beautiful test. Because after all, it is freaking beautiful, and the truth is you are well on your way to writing a very good exam, whether it's on the November test or the one next spring. (I took it in September, will take it again in January -- and I was nervous too.)

This is a great question because it requires

1) finding a somewhat hidden conclusion,

2) use of contrapositive in both the stimulus (if not skillfully explored > not performed regularly) and the answer choice (if not performed regularly > not popular several centuries from now) , and

3) attention to a crucial difference in premise term (performed) and conclusion term (popular) and

4) facility with writing conditional statements derived from category 1 (the only), 3 (unless) and 4 (none) terms.

I've spent at least 4 hours on this question today, thinking about the issues and the nature of the reasoning and rereading stuff. One thing I notice is that "the only", while indicating a sufficient condition immediately following it, really heralds a necessar condition, much as "only" does, just in a different order within the sentence. Both terms focus, in their essence, on the necessary, not sufficient, condition in that relationship. I think focusing on the fact that "the only" is followed immediately by the sufficient condition misses the point of the term. It's a gimmick that actually makes understanding its point more difficult.

What an aggravating and unfair question. J.Y. asks us to suspect the fuel rods are not the source because they never contain "significant" amounts of tellurium? What could matter less? Researchers found tellurium. Are we to assume they could only find tellurium if there were significant amounts? That's the kind of assumption we've all learned NOT to make on this test. But here we're supposed to make it and in doing so elevate suspicion that the core was the source of the leak.

No thanks. I've seen way too many examples of getting (justly) burned for making that kind of reckless assumption.

I think the difficult part of this question is navigating the writer's preposterous claim that fish recovery following mill shutdown is evidence that dioxin isn't the cause, when common sense argues that correlation would implicate, not exonerate, dioxin, since the mill produces dioxin only when operating.

I understand that claim is paired with the claim that dioxin decomposes slowly (thus making AC C correct). But the way it's written, it's as if both facts, the shutdown and the slow decomposition, independently support the writer's argument.

My point is that the fastest way to solve this question would have been recognizing the writer is a dope.

You have really limited time and energy thanks to living in the real world. You've worked hard on this test for a long time so you probably know more than you think you do, and the stress of the test is part of what's getting in your way. Assuming those premises are true I'd try this:

1) Have a glass of wine and watch a good movie tonight. No LSAT prep.

2) Tomorrow, with the one good hour or 90 minutes you have to study, do 5 LR questions untimed, and for each one, don't read the question until you absolutely understand the stimulus. Then read the question and answer it. Then do a blind review and see how you did. If you do noticeably better under untimed circumstances and are taking longer than the target time suggests, that argues for approaching the test differently than you might be now. Most people taking the exam intend to read and think about all 27 LR questions, but that's often a poor strategy because correct answers to any of these questions come ONLY from understanding the stimulus, which can take a fair amount of time. I suggest not reading the question first because if you do read it first, you then have two mental tasks running concurrently: understanding the stimulus AND applying it to the question. That's really difficult, given how subtle many LR questions are.

I read the stimulus before reading the question, so when I read this I thought: European kids have healthier teeth than American kids but Americans use fluoride which should help; why are Americans doing worse despite fluoride? Must be some American disadvantage, like crappier diet than Europeans' diet. That would reconcile the discrepancy, supporting the role for fluoride. Turns out the question wants the opposite, to discredit fluoride. So the answer will be the opposite of mine: Americans DON'T have a crappier diet. That's (E).

Slow down. Try reading one passage as if you and the author are having a conversation. Don't try to remember anything; just take a SINCERE and CURIOUS interest in what your author/pal is telling you and respond to each paragraph with your own observation: "I'll be damned! How do you figure? What did you do next, Roberto?" Slow-the-fuck-down and try that.

The stimulus is a nightmare. Right after saying the two groups lived in different environments it declares they must have faced the same challenges (as a premise for its conclusion). Totally counterintuitive. It's like saying "Bill and Harry ate at different restaurants last night. They must have eaten the same food." That craziness led me to (B), which says if you eat at different restaurants then you must be eating different food.

I'm thinking about how to do these fast, without writing anything down. I notice for this question the "not all" or "some" premise has the subject in the middle of the reasoning chain:

If linguistics > tenured >(some) /full prof

That means you can go to the AC's and really quickly just look at the  subject connected to the "not all" or "some" statement, and see: does it lead to one statement and follow from another, as in the stimulus? When I looked at the problem that way it took about 30 seconds to exclude A and B and to confirm C. Given a minute to read and understand and mentally diagram the stimulus, that's 90 seconds to solve this.

This is an irritating question for which the least bad answer is correct. That said here's my beef with (B):

The argument's true weakness if the assumption that wealthy patrons will share the candidates' views. Of course they won't necessarily do that.

For (B) to be correct it depends on an inference, since (B) does not say wealthy donors and candidates views might diverge. It says the party's and the candidate's views might diverge. The implied assumption there is that the donors' views converge with the party's views simply because the donors are represented in equal proportion to the population.

But who knows if that is actually the case? The donors can be equally represented in the party but have wildly divergent views compared with the party. To the extent that is true, (B) is false, and is the right answer only because all the others are less acceptable.

Reading this question was awful. Incomprehensible on first read-through. So I thought: focus only on the conclusion, which is, I think: Lots of little goats come ONLY from good goat sex.

I could have gotten the right answer had I thought to replace "frequency of a gene for small size" with "lots of little goats", as they have the same meaning in this context.

But I panicked. Take-home? Don't panic.

Bank president to his subordinate: "Thank you, Jenkins, for showing us we were dummies to think we could earn interest by storing cash in trash bags on the roof. By debunking it, you've made a useful contribution to that theory. We're going to make a lot of money now, Jenkins!"

I understand (D) is the best answer because all other answers are clearly wrong. But let's concede you can contribute to a theory by criticizing it. There's even a name for that -- constructive criticism, on which all scientific inquiry depends.

I think most of us (including me) carry a false assumption to this task: "It's reading, for fuck's sake. I've been doing it forever. What is going on, here?"

But in fact we are learning to play an instrument -- piano, french horn, take your pick. This is not the reading we have always done. It's a new skill. And just as with learning an instrument, it has two unfailing properties:

1) takes regular frequent patient practice, which if done,

2) yields great results.

B is wrong but not for the reason given in the explanation below the choice:

"No support for “new ways of understanding.” We don’t know whether before Aeschylean drama, ancient Greek civilization didn’t think of individuals as free agents. Aeschylean drama may be evidence of that a particular understanding had emerged, but that doesn’t imply Aeschylean drama created that understanding."

If something emerges it is new -- it has come into being. If I offered proof it had emerged, that would have to be pretty new, or my proof would be irrelevant, wouldn't it? Because people would say, Oh we don't need that proof; we've known about this for some time, now.

This idea of individual autonomy was news in ancient Greece -- that's what the first paragraph is talking about and is summarized by Barbu's comment.

B is wrong because it restates the essence of the first paragraph rather than describes an assumption supporting it (which D does, making that the correct choice).

I object. The argument concerns itself solely with how to help new product line development, not overall company success, which makes AC D irrelevant. For AC D to matter, the stimulus should have included this sentence: "Success of both new and established product lines should matter." That's the necessary assumption for AC D to be correct. Well, who gave you permission to make that assumption?

Meanwhile AC E is tenable because if you assign talented managers to new projects, their early short term revenue prospects may improve.

The problem with this time sink  question is the complex conclusion. But we can simplify that by removing its conditional aspect, making it true instead of hypothetically true. If you do that you get “you can’t know what action has the best consequences.” That is the conclusion.

Now all you have is the premise and conclusion:

P: If action then can’t know  all consequences.

C: If action then can’t know best consequences.

So now we just need missing premise linking those ideas:

If can’t know all consequences then can’t know best consequences.

That’s the contrapositive of AC C.

I saw it as you did, and got this wrong on actual take and then again on BR. "worsen" was in fact the poison pill for this frustrating question, because nowhere does the passage state or imply that the ineffectual proposed remedy would be even worse than the current crappy system allowing lawyers to charge exorbitant fees. It only makes the case that the proposal sucks, leaving ac E as the only tenable choice.

JY’s explanation refers to logic games and is more complex than I found this problem. I thought it’s as simple as

If A then B; not B; therefore not A, as follows:

If economically feasible then must be substance conducting above -148

There’s not substance conducting above -148

Therefore not economically feasible

Am I missing something?

@ (A) supports both facts in the stimulus: There are fewer thefts and (A) notes there are fewer thieves, which explains fewer thefts. And as (A) notes that more thieves are hanging on to the cars they've stolen, rather than abandon them, the thieves are therefore more likely to be caught and convicted (as the stimulus reports) because they can be connected to the stolen vehicle.

Thumbs down for this crappy question with at least two big flaws:

1) Re (A): why must we assume cooperative breeding can be done only for those birds who have reached breeding age? The stimulus doesn't say so. And birds too young to have sex can still play house with their pals, acting as cooperative breeders.

So what? Well, "many" could be "most," in which case (A) could be correct, since even though there was more room to breed, most of the birds there couldn't have sex, so they had to get by with cooeprative breeding, as on the old island although for a different reason. I don't like (A), but I think that's true, and it's worth noting because

2) So what if, as (C) notes, most of the terrain on the other island was atypical for nest building? Maybe the new terrain was twice as good as the typical nest building terrain. In that case we'd expect far less cooperative breeding because now all the birds could have sex and have a great time on the new island.

I think to be valid, (C) should have had to say "Most of the terrain on the neighboring island was of a type less favorable for breeding than that in which Seychelles warblers generally build their nests."

Now what's wrong with my reasoning?

#help

#tutor

#wth?

#shootmenow

I don’t think it’s as complex as JY suggests, because the first sentence can be considered background and prestige, in the conclusion, can be considered equivalent to advances in basic science research. Given that we have just one premise and a  conclusion:

P: if no more funding then no significant advances in basic research

C: if no more funding from non-profits, then no significant advances in basic research.

You can see what’s missing – the additional necessary premise that says

If no more funding from non-profits, then no more funding.

That’s AC D.