If anyone's stuck here's an easy analogy:

90% of Hawaiians are surfers.

62% of Indonesians are surfers.

______________________

There must be more Hawaiian surfers than Indonesian surfers

But the population of Indonesia is 300X that of Hawaii, so lets be fr there's no way there's more Hawaiian surfers

@Mariarocha1 ooo this is good, thanks!

I thought E was showing that a perceived seal-eating whale would produce the aversion effect to show evidence of the causal mechanism by which they learn to discriminate between dialects, which would explain why the other seals feel no need to avoid real fish-eating whales because they start with no aversion and presumably haven't been mistakenly attacked by a fish-eating whale 

@LSATWritersAreBullies and for A couldn’t you reasonably assume that we lost a lot of texts that could have showed the people’s support for the ruler, and because so few texts survived we are left with a potentially skewed unrepresentative sample, where the only the king’s enemies survived because if the king considered them enemies, they must have been powerful enough to have their texts preserved

A far-fetched assumption I guess, but is the assumption for C any more reasonable - i don’t understand how the lsat decided what assumption are or aren’t reasonable

@Sopapilla for realll. It could be like a legacy thing

I thought C could just as easily weaken the claim. It establishes a pattern in that time period of tyrants doing outrageous acts. If one scribe wrote about king X beheading all rebels, and another author wrote about king Y beheading all rebels earlier as well, couldn’t you just as reasonably make the assumption that tyrannical acts by kings were commonplace during this era?

@adykhan32 fax

@danielmoholia93 if it's unfair to everyone doesn't that mean it's fair to everyone lowkey

Thought C was wrong because it doesn't necessarily trigger the principle. It doesn't state an unfair result of the situation occurred, only that there is a chance an unfair result occurred.

Webster's definition of fair: "without discrimination or favoritism"

Rectify = correct

D lowkey accomplishes that

A question stem this long as the final question is diabolical

this passage turned me into a jazz hater

We kinda do have reason to believe he was a model though because the AC says it was common for painters to use live models, which can also be seen as social etiquette…

Also, even if the painting didn’t exactly replicate the model, the stimulus just says it resembles him, so there’s a lower burden of proof

I need financial compensation for this question

i'm feeling something and it's not love

#feedback more concise explanations - yap meter is too high

nah me and the LSAT writers are fighting now

I was a psych major and the results of this study were the opposite that tripped me up so much lmao

What's the difference between hypothesis 3 and 4? Aren't they somewhat making the same claim - that A and B are not causally related because of an alternative explanation

I feel like this past few lessons have confused me even more - also, who has the time to do all these lawgic translations when we have 1min per question lol