This one is mind games. For AC B, you needed to catch where the 'inconsistencies' were mentioned verrry briefly in the passage. It's def the "most reasonable" conclusion from this bunch of ACs. Fine...

However, just hypothetically, if I were to evaluate AC D in a vacuum, hear me out: would it be so crazy if Gouges 'mentioned' Condorcet's 'universal' rights idea in her argument? The stem doesn't need us to assume Gouges necessarily agrees with it. What if she brought it up to attack it as inferior? In any case, since AC B exists, it doesn't matter. Hope everyone is having a nice day.

P.S. 7Sage: "Gouges did not mention this." as an explanation for D? Come on. I didn't see a full, thousand-page record of her arguments, did you? How can you so boldly claim to know what is/isn't included we are given only a broad overview of her ideas? A better explanation would be "Gouges is not likely to mention this as it conflicts with her stance." You feel?

Good point. This is a genuine issue LSAC seems to have overlooked. What if we launched the Webb telescope at the star??

I understand now why A is correct, but I spent a lot of time looking at D. The passage states that burning resulted in forests with different levels of maturity, so taken together, there's a mosaic quality, a diversity. But answer Choice D claims that individual forests were themselves diverse. Not a fan. The explanation for D doesn’t touch on this.

Today I learned LSAC thinks 'dramatic performance' = 'acting performance'. Great. Thank you for that. Happily using the term 'dramatic' as it refers to the discipline and not to the genre of performance given. This swap would be a severe flaw on another question. I just hate the double-standard. Well, I guess real-life isn't black and white! Losing my mind studying for this test man. I can't even watch movies anymore without automatically finding the flaws and losing interest.

I call BS on this question. If your ice cream melted on Thursday, and you buy another on Friday, is your aim for the ice cream to melt?? Of course not. What kind of logic is this?

The rent control ordinance can be substantially different than what preceded it, or the council members could have just blindly hoped it would magically turn out better. Not a fan of C. SA answers are supposed to be logically certain, but C is giving "weak but better than the rest" AC vibes.

@JohnScott I agree 10000%

... is being less physically fit a 'health risk?'

@afk good stuff!! Thank u! 🫡🫡

@afk Thanks for the clarification afk, it sounds like u suffered bc of THEIR fluke, which rly sucks. Maybe I'll start practicing with the timer ticking just in case, LOL. Best of luck!

@afk You couldn't hide the timer??? That's gonna kill me...

I just chatted w/ customer support and they said "OFC there is a hide timer button silly!" but I can't trust these LSAC mfs anymore smh.

No. I'm literally yelling at my laptop. No. What is this?? A PROPOSAL??? HUH???

@GrahamBarker Same

LSAT writers seem to be using the word "credible" interchangeably with "logically sound". Am I stupid? Are these the same / similar enough concepts to do this?

it might be just me, but I had no idea what "deleterious" meant, and they had to stick it RIGHT in the conclusion.... 😁

Wait a min. Did we just leave the premise of the argument (no complaints abt the signs) in the dust? Is it implied that our answer choice here is like a cost benefit that outweighs that premise?

I've never had success bypassing premises to independently verify a conclusion...

TIL I don't know the diff between "dispense" and "dispense with" 💀

I'm getting hung up on the first two sentences. I feel like "Those who participate in risky sports often do so to confront their fears" is a subconclusion and "For example, rock climbers are more likely than others to have once suffered from a fear of heights." is premise for it.

How do I know I'm not supposed to poke holes in this as an argument in addition to the overall argument?

I think JY's translation of A is wrong?

Should be "computers can think -> believe in chess" ?

#help

Disgusting

Regarding C, Appealing to tradition can't be the "only" premise. The author clearly says that voting is a "sacred right" too. What am I missing?

Edit: I think it's bc the author never claims the act of voting is being threatened. It would function as a premise if the argument was more: "voting is being taken away from us, and voting is a sacred right!" But as it stands, the author just specifies a type of voting that is occurring, not a loss of the right itself. So, the premise about tradition becomes the only thing supporting the claim we shouldn't vote by mail. It's not that voting by mail isn't voting, the author never says this.

Edit2: Yeah, now that I'm looking at this stim with fresh eyes, the "sacred right" bit is just classic LSAT filler.

@danjpeach96 love the acronym idea.

@Marissaaaa 🫡

I interpret the first rule, "anyone without constant awareness" as people anywhere from 0 to 99.9% constant awareness. You could have someone who is kinda aware, someone who is not aware at all, and someone who is sooo close to being "constantly aware". So that's how this stim actually is inclusive to all people out there.

How is this not a sufficiency necessity flaw?? 😭

I love you Kevin