This question confused me because I was not sure what it means to be /misconception. In my head I was thinking maybe there is some middle ground, just as being /bad does not imply you are good.

this alone is still not enough to make C close to being correct, because you still have to get over the idea that false and pernicious ideas, when debated, do not always have a diminished appeal.

If it were the case that false and pernicious ideas, when debated > diminished appeal then it would be impossible for them to always be misconceptions, because there are some misconception that gain popularity. (of course you have to say that gain popularity is the contrapositive of diminished appeal which I think is probably not that big of a jump).

In the country of Boldavia at present, only 1 percent of 80-year-olds are left-handed, whereas 10 percent of 50-year-olds and 15 percent of 20-year-olds are left- handed. Yet over the past 80 years, the proportion of Boldavians who are born left-handed has not increased, nor have Boldavian attitudes toward left-handedness undergone any important changes.

PTA.S1.Q20

Show correct answer

20.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the variation in incidence of left-handedness among Boldavians?

Clean

Actual take

Blind review–

• a

  In Boldavia, where men have a shorter average life expectancy than do women, left-handedness is less common among women than among men.

the left handed people are more likely to die, left = more likely man, so that means that there is less as people get older. No increase in people born left handed too.

• b

  In Boldavia, left-handed people are no more likely than right-handed people to be involved in accidents.

• c

  Ambidexterity is highly valued in Boldavia.

• d

  The birthrate in Boldavia has decreased slowly but steadily over the course of the past 80 years.

• e

  Left-handed people have never accounted for more than 18 percent of the population of Boldavia.

@J.Y. Ping Thanks lol! I have been looking for some information about which are the newest and could not find anything online. Additionally, how are these older ones graded? Obviously they may be a little bit easier by a couple of points, but if I am using these as diagnostics going into my test will it be very far off? Finally, I see that they only have the online formats for a small portion of the bonus tests, while there are more pdf versions of what looks like more up to date test versions (for example, they have digital and manual uploads for PT23, PTF97, PT21, PTA... but no manual uploads for 80-90, which are presumably newer given it has a higher number than say 1-50). Is that right to assume that these high pt numbers are newer? Should I prioritize these higher numbered older pts?

I have been using 7sage for a while and have run out of fully clean pts except for 159 of course. Would it be useful to use some of these older pts leading up to what is most likely my last official lsat take in january? It seems like redoing some pts or doing frankenstein-ish swiss cheese tests might be a better use of my time. Of the 101-159 I have roughly 1500 questions, this is still a lot of drilling material at the very least.

There is a similar lsat question if anyone is interested and I think I got this one right because I had seen this other one multiple times.  Take a look at it - py 126, s4, q5 

Thank you high school for teaching me about this. This passage felt like a one star because of my prior knowledge!

If you ever see the phrase "overwhelming evidence to the contrary" you are going to have to think with your smooth brain "Where and when did they mention this evidence?" and if you don't know where this evidence is, this cannot be the right answer. Additionally, "was it overwhelming" might help help you. Better luck next time me.

This says STR but is very similar to NA.

C might just be some of the most awkward wording I have seen on the test. Not awkward because it is super hard to understand, but because it feels like there is more that was meant to be said. Maybe "with one's neighborhood" or " with the neighborhood". I was tempted to choose C because E leaves open the possibility there is not an equal increase. Still E is the best answer because C, as it is written in this form, would mean that one neighborhood may have a low satisfaction and another may have a high satisfaction. This is not what the stim is saying.

if an argument takes for granted something, then that can be reframed as NA.

I did not consciously see the suff nece confusion. I think I moreso felt it here. I thought the same thing as JY, just because you break the rules does not mean you are ignorant of them.

@linyang55 I see what you mean. They are synonymous and interpreting it as such still does not make it wrong. Under this meaning, you can change spread to adopt and it means the same thing "that even if the practice of organic farming continues to be adopted, many farmers will choose not to adopt it."

wow love that curve jy!

Can we all just appreciate how Kevin cooked so hard in this video. I love when he creates an analogous argument that more easily illustrates the crux of the issues.

I have seen so many answer choices use purpose in a similar way to this. Many times purpose is meaningless on the lsat, now obvious there are times where it is not meaningless. But, I think that in our world purpose can seem so important or carry many implications, but this is not the case on the lsat. Often times on the lsat we just do not have enough info to concluded anything just by knowing purpose.

@SihanFan I chose D for the same reason. Resolve feels very strong. He says, they "may be complementary". The right answer obvious comes from this line though "Paranormal phenomena may exist but be inaccessible to scientific investigation. This is just a hypothesis, but one that I find tenable and plausible." I guess if B were to say A, then he would say, well wth, did you not see this line. And D could be wrong because just merely "trying to resolve" does not necessarily mean he is proposing a definitive solution, rather just attempting to provide evidence that could resolve or bolster a case.

This info is mainly for me, type of waj lol.

I dont know what babies kevin has been around but the must be scary

waj

@Elijah Mize Thanks!

@Elijah Mize thanks!

Love when I notice the bi conditionals! 

I have been drilling psa and sa questions for the last two weeks almost daily, and man.. SA questions are now so dang easy. I feel like the whole test has been easier now that I truly understand these questions. I would recommend anywho who has yet to truly master this question to drill it everyday for a week and the whole test will start to feel easier.

GWR> DISSENT

GWR> Minorities protected

Protects Minorites > Permits Criticism

A>B

A>C

C>B

This is the flawed form. Time to find what mirrors that.

B,Correct:

JM>Cap.Imp

JM>Cap.Re.Mu.

Cap.Re.Mu.>Cap. Imp.

Time for a cond log workout for the rest.

A: Int.A.Own>Pol.Admire

Ignore Own Int in favor of Nation> Admire

This seems like valid reasoning.

C: Eco. C.D> Pop. L.A.> /Abun. and V.

conc: Eco. /C.D. > Abun. and V.

The form in C is essentially

A>B>C

/A>/C

This is an invalid argument structure.

D: Intellectuals>some>/S.A.

Intellectual>/Pro.A.

Conc: Pro. A. > S.A.

A>some>/B

A>/C

C>B

I chose this wrong answer choice as my last question hail-marry after quickly choosing B. I had little time for any certainty. There are definitely some similarities with the STIM flaw, although clearly it is off. The some statement and negations preclude it from being correct though.

E: 1st N>R.T. and Conceal

3rd>some>R.M.

Conc: R.M.> should 3rd

I don't even know what to say about it. there really is not much that is mirrored here. Is it even valid. Idk? I mean maybe we can reveal motives without being 3rd. Although maybe the prescription could make sense given more information. We know that some 3rd lead to r.m. but if it had said that if you r.m. > then must be 3rd, that would be more convincing.

This has been my second biggest worry outside of my LSAT score. I hope this gets uploaded on the live classes forum because I am a working man and unfortunately cannot attend. Thanks, everyone!

@rohanrama20651 I don't think so. If we negate answer C to say, "No society has been geographically isolated enough not to have been influenced by any other society.". This means that "every society has been influenced by another (regardless of geographical isolation). This negated answer would weaken but not destroy the argument, because it is not specific enough to preclude that money can be independently created. Influenced ≠ /independent enough to create something novel to your society or both societies. Still, it is worth mentioning that the conclusion says "it seems probable that the invention of money occurred independently in more than one society." Perhaps this makes it less probable but still does not preclude the independent invention of money. A necessary assumption would be something more along the lines of, "it is possible for a society to have come up with money independent of another" or "Any society with the concept of money, did not necessarily acquire that idea from another" or ever "every invention did not came from one singular society".