On the actual LSAT it always shows a brief description before the section begins while the break timer has started. So I know what section I'm about to go into before going into it and I get to mentally prepare for RC vs LR during that minute. 7Sage just has a screen with a timer, it would be nice if this description or a similar one could be included.
Salam, I am interested in this as well
These are helpful!
The reason AC D is correct is because the conclusion of the author is really strong. The author concludes that Whenever lawyers engage in such behavior, it is reasonable to doubt the verdict. D says no, in cases where there is good evidence, the lawyers bad behavior rarely effects the verdict. So inferred: There are probably cases where the lawyer has bad behavior and the verdict was not effected because good evidence was presented.
The reason AC D is correct is because the conclusion of the author is really strong. The author concludes that Whenever lawyers engage in such behavior, it is reasonable to doubt the verdict. D says no, in cases where there is good evidence, the lawyers bad behavior rarely effects the verdict. So inferred: There are probably cases where the lawyer has bad behavior and the verdict was not effected because good evidence was presented. Example if I show you a 4K HD video of a defendant shooting a victim and 15 witnesses testify they saw the defendant do the shooting. No matter how much the lawyer uses inflammatory language or badgers the witnesses the jury will probably put a guilty verdict that is not reasonable to doubt.
In actual take and BR this question felt so difficult but looking at it the next day it's so clear. If you only take the first sentence (Conclusion) and the last sentence and ignore everything in the middle it becomes clear.
conc: Only buy pan with warranty
Support: manufactures will not offer warranty if doing so means they will need to reimburse many customers bec it does not work well.
That should ring a bell - wait will manufactures need to reimburse many customers if they offered a warranty and the product does not work well? Do I know that? What if they won't have to reimburse customers because nobody seeks out the warranty. The argument falls apart. That's what the argument is missing.
AC A solves this - if most people would seek warranty from manufacturer if the pan does not work well then that means they would have to reimburse many customers if the product does not work well.
You might think wait didn't the stimulus say even of one would never bother seeking reimbursement, yeah but that only applies to you. If I'm buying a pan and I see it has a warranty, and I know that everything else is true - ie if the pan did not work long most people would seek out a warranty and in that case the manufacture would never offer a warranty so thus the pan must be work well and last long.
How do you know if something was influenced by something else? The only way for that to happen is for the influencer to have happened first. If I influence someone to do something, I have to have done that thing before the person I'm influencing. If they were already doing the thing then I cannot influence them to do it. So the author when he concludes that the Swahili culture was influenced by the Oromo culture, that means by definition that the Oromo culture had to have done that thing first. This is an unsubstantiated assumption the author is making and that makes his reasoning incorrect. D is incorrect partially because its so specific. The author does not assume that there was not a third civ responsible for creating the first kind of tombs. And the author also expliciates this by saying know other people that the swahili people had contact with would have made tombs like this. The stimulus does allow for the assumption that the Oromo people may have been influenced by a third civ but even then the author only concludes that the Oromo people only influenced the swahili culture so even then the answer would not hurt the argument. C is incorrect since it is not a flaw to draw a restricted conclusion.
For anyone still struggling with C and the statement "hunters kill no fewer deer today"
Think of parallel examples:
Drivers cause no fewer accidents today.
Factories produce no fewer emissions today.
Both of these you read as total drivers or total factories so the hunter deer thing is the same
The advice I have heard that may be applicable here is that if your score can get you into any law school then you should keep it. So if a 147 cannot get you into any school (That you would be willing to attend) then it might be better to cancel. There is always a chance you do worse on your next exam and if you canceled the first score that leaves you with nothing
Yes, I use it when I'm doing question type drills. It's helpful to see by how much I'm actually struggling on those types of questions and where I should be relative to people scoring around the same. It helps in confidence that these are actually the questions I should be working on where if it just told me what was "highest priority" that wouldn't be as helpful. The bars explain why that's highest priority. Sometimes it also is a confidence booster to see the lower priority questions where I might be doing better than my peers, especially if it's a question with lower expected accuracy. It would be nice though if it included drilling data, perhaps separately. I would like to see if there are question types that I do well on when in sections and drilling and then worse in exam settings, or vice versa.
A bit confused as to why choice E is not correct. Steven claims that the BA level should be cut in half from say 0.8 to 0.4. That means he thinks anyone over 0.4 poses a danger to the public. Choice E would place someone at maybe 0.5 so Steven would say this person is a danger to the public. Miguel says social drivers are not as big of an issue - implying the 0.8 limit is fine. Therefore Miguel would agree with the statement that someone at 0.5 does not pose a threat.
They both disagree on this point, Steven says they are a danger at 0.5 while Miguel would say they are not really a danger under 0.8.