"Supported. We know that the rocks become progressively older as they get further away from the crest of the mid-ocean ridge. Where is the mid-ocean ridge? Probably somewhere in the middle of the ocean. That’s why it’s called “mid-ocean”? If the rocks get progressively older as they get further from the mid-ocean ridge...then they’re oldest the furthest away they get. Where are the rocks that are furthest from the mid-ocean ridge? Near the continents." Ah... now this is bullshit because there are underwater continents: Zealandia and Kerguelen Plateau. This is where I say alright. The LSAC bit off more than they can chew. I would try to send this one to the board to be reconsidered since they are not aware that there are underwater continents. Of course, it wouldn't matter because they would give me the thumbs down anyways, and I will just accept my fate.

You know that person that corrects you on your terminology based on one word that practically means the same thing? Well... that is the writers for the LSAC. It's remarkable how many questions I have missed over one word. It baffles me that is a determinant of my ability to succeed in the legal profession. However, this is a backstabbing industry that loves to screw people over with one word. So, I will either get used to it, or I will reconsider my contemplation to depart my current field for a pit of snakes.

@lsatsmasher Clearly, I need to work on it. However, that an October me issue.

What a horrible question. Like... Passage A makes it very clear that the 1st paragraph was the viewpoint of some legal theorist. So, I immediately crossed out D. I understand that since the author is aware of other viewpoints it is conceivable. However, this question is excellent opportunity to encourage a bad habit of blurring viewpoints and quite frankly I believe this should be removed. I don't mind missing this one. So be it. The LSAT is not straight forward, and I am never going to get all of the answers correct. The key is to not spend too much time on garbage questions like this so that way I can get the more legitimate and easier questions on the exam.

Congrats! I just broke 160 as well then, I got smoked on my next exam. Sometimes, the section just has tougher questions than others. When I got smoked, it was in the RC, but once I went back to review, every passage was 5/5 on difficultly. I just learned from my mistakes and just moved on.

"They call me redneck, white trash and blue collar, but I could change all that if I had a couple million dollars."

21-minute video. Time to break out some popcorn... 

5 out of 5 on the first try... I am dumbfounded. A blind squirrel found a nut. I better watch my back. Whenever I feel like I am getting the LSAT, it always finds a way to put me right back in my place... I will be sleeping with one eye open tonight.

Man... I think I am going to become a long-term friend with this problem if I stare at it any longer. I don't know what is more confusing. My girlfriend or this problem. Probably my girlfriend... she is a work of art.

"This seems like a totally logical argument to me, so I am in trouble." Me every day since I bestowed this endeavor of taking the LSAT since May.

Ah... Mr. Fat cat... my old friend. We meet again.

Can someone please confirm this reasoning for me? I want to double check that I do not have anything wrong before I make it a hard rule in my head that a conclusion must always have support. Thank you.

This is argument part question. So, I am looking to figure out where dictation software fails to live up to its billing fits with the argument.

Dictation software allows a computer to produce a written version of sentences that are spoken to it (background information). Although dictation software has been promoted as a labor-saving invention (acknowledgment of another argument), it fails to live up to its billing (main conclusion). The laborious part of writing is in the thinking and the editing, not in the typing (this I believed to be another sub conclusion that supports the main conclusion but the problem with this is that there is no further support for the claim so it cannot be a conclusion). And proofreading the software's error-filled output generally squanders any time saved in typing. (support)

The answer is that "dictation software fails to live up to its billing" is the only conclusion.

So, now... why is "The laborious part of writing is in the thinking and the editing, not in the typing." that is because there is no further support given by any premise so it cannot be a conclusion. A conclusion has to be supported.

To make A work, it would have to go: "The laborious part of writing is in the thinking and the editing, not in the typing. It takes more time to think and edit than it is to blindly copy text." That would make it another conclusion.

In order for a part to be a conclusion, it has to be supported by some other premise.

#help

I will have to say... Doing the heavy work of showing what the excerpt has to be to match the wrong questions that I select is very helpful identify what I am looking for when I take practice exams. The write ups are a pain in the ass because it can take me 20 to 30 minutes of analyzing of why I was attracted to the answer, why I did not select the right answer, why the answer I selected was wrong, why the correct answer is correct, what does the excerpt have to say to make the wrong answers correct, and what do I have to do overall to improve, but I really do learn from my mistakes thanks to it. I always flag any answers I get wrong or if I am over 30 seconds over the target time, and I will customize a drill for my flagged questions, and I will not stop redoing them until I get them correct and I am faster than the target time. It's a lot of work, but it is really helping me. I hope sharing this can help others who are going through the same struggle.

I got baited so hard that I still have the hook caught in my mouth. I went with A which is a fantastic choice for a strengthen question, but it is not necessary for the argument to survive. Ah man... I told myself I was not going to select the strengthen answer that is not necessary, but here we are. With pliers. A bloody mess. Trying to remove this hook out of my mouth. Thanks LSAC! Best way to spend a Friday night!

Man... This has to be the viewpoint of every major university. No wonder why tuition is completely out of control...

@Nickgigs Try this analogy: Premise: I play basketball. Conclusion: Therefore, I am one of the best basketball players in the world. Sufficient assumptions powerfully improve the argument, e.g., I've won 5 NBA championships. In contrast, necessary assumptions may not improve the argument by much, but they are required, e.g., I know how to dribble a basketball.

Try this: Premise: I want to go to law school. Conclusion: I will get a 180 on the LSAT to improve my chances of being accepted.

Necessary assumption: I have to pay the LSAC $248 (If I say, I can't pay the LSAC $248, there is zero chance that I can get a 180 because I cannot sit for the exam that is the negation that completely shatters the argument) so it is necessary.

Sufficient assumption: In my pursuit to go to law school, I have taken over 10,000 LSAT questions, attended multiple prep courses, and consistently score 180's on my practice exams (I am not implying this is me. My practice exams suck, but I am working on it). This strengthens the argument that I have a better chance I am getting a 180. But this is not necessary because technically, I can never do a course and never see a single LSAT question and still score a 180 (unlikely, but not impossible).

Be careful on these questions. The correct answer must connect the premise to the conclusion. As you can see, I connected going to law school to a high score to give myself a better chance of getting into a law school. It's the same for the necessary clause. It has to connect the premise to the conclusion. I want to go to law school. Hence, I have to take the LSAT. So, I have to pay LSAC $248. It connects the premise to the conclusion.

If the necessary assumption is negated, the argument completely shatters.

I hope this helps.

I can dribble a ball... that means I have a chance! Just like I have $248 meaning I have a chance at taking the LSAT. Thank you LSAC!

@Nickgigs Try this video. It helped me a lot.

Tips for Sufficient Assumption Questions [LSAT Logical Reasoning]

@Saul McGill At first, I saw how long the video was and was like not viewing it. But on second thought, I watched it, and it made this way clearer. Thank you for sharing this. Well worth the time.

The LSAT reminds me of a father that I simply can never impress. Anytime that I think that I did something good, the LSAT always finds a way to put me right back in my place and throw something like this in my face. However, there is no better feeling than beating them at their own game. Not entirely sure how I will accomplish that, but I have a feeling it will involve at least another 100 hours of video tutorials and at least 5,000 more questions.

Welp... the LSAT riders took me for a nice ride...

I personally prefer my Bob the Builder costume when I build a bridge. Most likely why I get half of these wrong... the bridges I build collapse like a house of cards as soon a breath of air touches it.

Wait... stairs on not ladders... come on now... 120 here I come!

@DanielleBucko Thank you for the clarification. As I trenched through the next few lessons, it became a lot clearer that is what they are going for. Go bucs!

Alrighty... I must come to the conclusion that it is not time to study for the bar considering that the page cannot be found. Oh thank god. I live another day.