It seems like there are 3 different reasons why E is incorrect. Another reason aside from the 2 talked about by JY and a commenter, is that E is saying that it probably would be of little use. So in other words, it would be a little bit useful. But the stimulus says that it would not be useful.

Not being useful is stronger than being of little use, so you can't get to not being useful just from the fact there is little use.

This was the reason why I ultimately chose B.

Gilman has a specific version of Social Darwinism, that cannot be challenged, and if she has a specific version of it, then Social Darwinism is the general type. E should be correct. An introduction to social Darwinism was given in the end of the first and beginning of the second paragraph.

The fact the score averages for answering B and E are about the same is another piece of evidence. If the answer was B and not E we would see higher scorers who did well on the test to pick B at much higher rates, which didn't happen. Both are valid answers.

I've never seen an LSAT question with this number of comments before... and I have to agree. I don't get how I'm supposed to infer information about Ancient Greece from an ancient Greek play. Also, the answer choice seems like it's saying people GENERALLY do this, and not a absolutely zero people read aloud. C is tricky because "on-stage action" is a confusing statement that could be interpreted as being false.

So has a very weak necessary condition like A ever been the correct answer, or is it just never correct in a strengthen question like this? I feel as though it's correct sometimes (I could be wrong), and if so, it's hard to easily rule it out when B has some assumptions to make for it to work.

Q26 is incredibly confusing and one of the hardest questions I've come across. The correct answer is making the jump from "derived from jurists' interpretation" to "derived from a consensus", but that's kind of a weird way to put it. It's like saying it's derived from the jurists' opinions, because the opinions would have to be in agreement.

The important part is the agreement of interpretations, the interpretation itself is completely irrelevant, so it's weird to isolate it and say that it is derived from the jurists' interpretation when in one sense, the actual interpretation doesn't matter at all.

This is one of those rare questions where even after doing this lesson I can see myself getting a question exactly like this wrong in the future.

Q12

I'm a little upset because I felt there is a significant difference between not needing any specific verbal context vs not needing a verbal context.

The former I assumed means you obviously still need some type of verbal context, like literally any, but it's still needed, whereas that answer choice seems to say you don't need a verbal context.

I guess it's still pretty good even with that problem and I should've chosen it. My brain thought it was a trap answer.

Didn't even catch the difference between commercial flights and flying in general, which is important because there are some questions which hinge on you needing to see the distinction between two similar concepts.

Got it right off intuition and feelings rather than a concrete reason.

E says it's simply ONE OF the largest costs, yet you failed to point out this glaring issue with it. Usually with wrong answers you are quick to point out its faults but with the right answer here you are blind to the problems. With the little pie chart you made, you assumed that E means pumping is the majority of the cost, yet E could also mean it's the 3rd largest contributor of cost with a measly 10%.

Both are equally arbitrary assumptions we just made. E might be the best answer, but it is overall a pretty weak answer that wasn't properly dissected here, in my humble opinion.

Every so often I'll come across a 2-difficulty question that, for some reason, feels like I'm trying to crack the Da Vinci Code. Clearly, brains are just different.

The stimulus made it seem like the lawyer was hinting at the witness lying, so I was expecting an answer like that, and E was the only one that seemed like what I was expecting. It just didn't feel right though, so I changed it to D after 15 seconds, and then kept it there for another 40 seconds while I racked my brain around wtf I was reading. I had to evolve mid-question, and gosh darn does it feels good.

I think B is wrong because it implies that testing for engine wear alone is a reliable gauge of quality, because of the word "also". So it doesn't challenge or do anything.

I actually thought augment just meant change instead of increase, which made me take longer than I should have on this one.

Totally just glossed over the "comparable number of items" part. I really gotta slow down and read carefully...

"Different corporations have different core corporate philosophies."

So even if it doesn't say "all" here, we are to assume it means all? I think I need to read a logic textbook or something.

Unsure how from "each such doubling was accompanied by..." we can make the arrows biconditional, meaning going both ways like ↔. If I said each time I went to disney land, I was accompanied by my mom, that doesn't mean that each time my mom was at disney land, she was accompanied by me. She could've went by herself. Anyone have an explanation?

Question 8 kinda makes sense tbh. I got it wrong but damn I should've chosen C.

Damn I got the tough ones right but messed up on the MP. I get that it doesn't mention social factors in particular, but wow E seemed too specific.

I put A initially, but I thought it was just stupid, because if the electric cars that people are mainly driving are in urban areas, then isn't all the pollution because of the cars they drive considered urban pollution, even though the pollution isn't literally in the city? Would we really call that rural pollution?

I thought it was just a dumb semantical trap, but no, I guess it's the answer. Great.

"Errmmm, akshually the pollution would be done in poor areas, not the cities, therefore it does not cause urban pollution, checkmate!!!" How stupid.

I think this lesson is pretty bad because you fail to dive deeper into the difference between common understanding of that sentence and what your understanding needs to be on the test. In conversation, blackouts will occur unless the heat wave abates would imply that the heat wave abating would mean no blackout will occur, same as me saying I will slap you unless you apologize. In regular language, everyone would read that and understand that them apologizing would mean they wouldn't get slapped. But on the LSAT and in a logic class, you could still get slapped after apologizing. I now understand it, but this just makes no intuitive sense and an acknowledgement of that would've helped since I had to go to external sources for 20 minutes to try and find an answer.

Chose B but then C in BR. I'm confused. I thought they were trying to trick us into making that assumption that the readers in the survey were the same as the newspaper's readers. If none of the readers in the survey read the newspaper, then you can't make an inference about what a great number of the newspaper's readers think.

But I guess it's implied that the survey is surveying 1000 people who read the newspaper?

For Q27, is there anything I can do to fix my brain from making those reading errors? I literally paused and read answer A like 5 times and still didn't see that it said "the day" instead of "today" until you actually pointed it out. I feel like I commonly get questions wrong because my brain assumes certain words or ignores certain words.