I know B is unsupported but I really wanted to choose it based on personal LSAT bias LOL

but realistically, same clues as the detective yet following a different path. If the detective solves the mystery with the same clues given, then the current clues should be enough to solve the mystery.

this is what I feel ratemyprof is like

@Arkavian

Not a tutor but my explanation as to why C over E is resulting in the claim of what caused the deformities?

If we choose E, that could properly evaluate the claim by determining whether there other pollutants that could have involved the deformities. For that reason it's wrong in this EXCEPT question.

FOR C, this statement has nothing to do with the chemicals producing the deformities. This question only asks if the those with the deformities caused any problems. For all we could know, the deformed fish could have caused that problem regardless of whether the chemicals were or were not involved. It doesn't solve the issue of what caused the deformities.

I was just looking through the answer choices and answer choice E gave me a good laugh LOL

I was doing blind review and it just occurred to me how obvious it was.

It's strongly supported that the poison didn't work because the pike are still a problem LMAO

prephrase was literally just because there's more exposure of crime doesn't mean there's more crime and A fit that bill pretty nicely

this was a stimulus where I chose a different answer compared to my pre-phrase.

My pre-phrase was: The norm of warmer weather is going to allow for something to impede the yield.

C was along the lines of that with that something being insect pests to impede but I kept getting the concepts of recent years and the norms confused in my head.

I chose E at the time even though I felt odd about that particular answer since it didn't address how it would impede the growth. I think I need to trust in my gut more often and just accept that if it's wrong for the reason I think it's wrong, then I should cross it off.

i made the mistake of long distance could also mean driving for long distances (per time) compared to driving a longer total.

The reasoning itself is problematic because of the comparison to a smaller representation aaaa

I REALLY wanted A to be right so bad because it would be so funny to have an answer choice be "OBJECTION HEARSAY" but I know it's C because the author uses "retired from company" to be equal to "retirement in general"

@KindlyQualifiedChampionship The premises we're provided is that the hepadnavirus is inserted into a chromosome and will remain in that same chromosome when being passed down. We see this with the zebra finches and the dark-eyed junco who derived from their ancestor 25 million years ago.

The answer choice is about eliminating the option that the virus could have appeared anytime after the 25 million years.

Suppose the fragment is randomized on any animal, it will still appear on the same chromosome it latched onto 25 million years ago. If you infected a zebra finch or the junco right now, it would appear on a different spot.

C almost got me but then I thought about the logic of the stimulus. I was thinking originally because I equated the unlikelihood of favouring the proposal that the airport will not be built. But the author never made that flaw.

It is quite a cookie-cutter sufficiency-necessity flaw. Essentially

Favor (most) -> built

Unlikely favor

------

Unlikely built

It's quite literally A -> B. Not A -> Not B (let's equivocate unlikely to not in this case)

I was trying to figure out what the conclusion was without diagramming and that got me stuck for a while. What's the connection to being a genius/innovator and angering majority?

At a certain point, I decided to diagram it because it wasn't clicking immediately. Then it clicked as soon as I finished the diagram. The wording of the stimulus rarely changed on the idea of dissatisfaction so it was easier to chain from there.

GCG -> Diss -> controversy -> falsehood of view points

GCG -> anger majority

oh view points -> anger majority.

I liked this kind of question where it feels like I'm both strengthening Randy's argument and weakening Marion's argument.

Randy's argument: Mayor wants news programming diversity as demonstrated by using her influence.

Marion's argument: Mayor is only rewarding Azco for supporting her by allotting them time.

I want to look for an answer that promotes diversity and denies the notion of support

Answer choices:

A - how does this affect the mayor's actions?

B - Perfect. Using influence to get a channel that supported her opponent. Promotes the idea of diversity and denies the notion of only rewarding supporters.

C - Again, how does this affect what the mayor did?

D - Strengthens Marion unfortunately :(

E - I think this answer choice just adds an assumption of viewership impacting the Mayor's motives? but I'm not looking for that. I just found this answer choice pretty irrelevant

My experience in minimum wage jobs coming through answer choice A 🗣️

POE helped me out but upon first glance I wanted to look for an answer that focused on the dangling variable that is "looking beyond borders if prosper"

A - SEEMED very strong considering it stated every significant influence but it does connect the premises to the conclusion if it was assumed.

B - the analogy to physics isn't important to making the conclusion valid so idc about it

C - Idc about accuracy

D - i already know that international trade affects prices and wages, idc about it being the primary variable

E - So economists ignore the effects of trade and wages, how does this help me realize that they need to look beyond national borders to prosper? I need them to KNOW the significant effects to prosper, i don't care about what they don't know.

All the other answer choices didn't have much that linked to the idea of prospering anyways, so A seemed the desirable pick to me despite its strong language throwing me off for a second.

@Bobby68 MEGA MAN MENTIONED IN BIG 26 🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️

The major difference I see from C and D is that frogs are the only animals known to live in the lagoon in C but D states that frogs in the entire island only live in the lagoon.

It's knowing the difference in the sets that make the wrong answer stand out. The right answer stood out to me because it used the exact reasoning the stimulus used. Upon further review, I could understand why I would be confused with C. I would get caught up with the "nothing but frogs" instead of the first premise.

@Elle I think you focused more on the assumption that "permits cost money" rather than the entire answer choice being about minimal training.

Other answer choices suggest the principles of climbers claiming responsibility for their risks (i.e., climbers paying the subsidy instead of citizens/taxpayers who don't climb) or deterring the risk.

The stimulus never mentions any stage of training, rather extends this proposal to ALL climbers.

THE POOR OWL :(

I was gonna click D but my library wifi so doo doo that it submitted as something else..

@LSATWritersAreBullies i was going to be like hell yea until i was thrown off by the stimulus’ result LOL

MY HATRED FOR FREUD CAME IN THROUGH YESSIR

10/13, but 13/13 on BR. I spent way longer on the passages but it's definitely less time than I spent during the problem-analysis type passages.

12/13, 11/13 on BR. I did it untimed (39min) and on average difficulty but honestly, I feel like this is such a big W for me.

170 MANIFEST PLEASE