Is perilously a common word the LSAT expects its test takers to know? Asking for a friend

If you don't know the definition of the word perilously, the LSAT will dock you -1 point pretty much. Sounds fair.

Since when was cultural trends considered fashion???? THIS QUESTION STINKS

Sheesh

Answer choice (E) indicates that homocysteine is an effect of Alzheimer's, not the cause (which is what the author implies in the argument). Anytime an answer choice suggests that the author's causal argument might be reversed, that will weaken that causal argument.

You're welcome.

Answer choice E strengthen the argument.

What is it we are trying to weaken? THE FACT THAT THESE VITAMIN PILLS WILL REDUCE THE RISK OF A. DISEASE.

E say what? Alzheimers increases level of histamine in the blood.

Okay so it increase the level of histamine in the blood. You then take these pills and now your level is back at baseline. Well guess what? Those who didn't take the pills still have high levels of histamine in the blood.

This literally strengthens the argument.. Did anyone else think of it this way?

Can someone help me with E? If experts were consulted, it implies that the city contracting the experts have received affirmation that they NEED the street sines for x, y, and z. Therefore, this would explain to me whether or not the street signs is a waste of money. If the experts say we need it then it was not a waste of money, if they weren't consulted than we have no way of knowing if it is a waste of time or money.

I feel like E really hits the spot. Answer choice C employs the same exact tactic as answer choice E. So I get why C is right, but I don't understand why E is wrong.

20/27 :) Heck Yeah.

Question 17: You MUST understand the author is saying --> " I purpose the primary motivators" to get this question correct. ASK yourself what motivators could lead to a path in the woods? NONE of the answer except E would touch on this.

I'm not sure what I like more, more implied or explicitly stated reading comp questions. They are both just as scary in my humble opinion. Ugh.

I don't use conditional diagramming, as I believe that concept is not necessary to be able to understand the text. As a matter of fact the more I study conditional logic, the worse I do. My brain does not work that way. Can some PLEASE explain to me how from the following information below, we can conclude that (it is not possible to be both a bio major and a literature major).

Students (100)

70 of the students are taking FL and B together

Every student taking Bio is a bio major. Therefore 70 students are bio majors.

Based on this information. Some students (70 students) taking FL are not free literature major. Why? Because they HAVE to be bio majors since every student taking bio is a bio major.

Yo this question is absolutely cashews & almonds!

My problem with b is that just like how cultivated apples today are different in size from cultivated apples five thousand years ago, you would fully expect the same it true for wild apples. Wild apples today are probably not the same size they were 5,000 years ago. To assume they are the exact same sizes is a mistake that the author making the argument is displaying. Answer choice B does point out that he makes the mistake of thinking cultivated apples today are the same as 5000 years ago, but then it ironically does the exact same assumption with wild apples. This is why I negated B. I literally thought to myself (this is a paradoxical problem within a paradoxical problem). Wild apples today are significantly larger than wild apples of 5,000 years ago.

When answer choice b says "tend to resemble their wild counterparts" we are wrong to assume they resemble our "wild counterparts".

There is absolutely no way question 19 in not E. How is that even possible?

When I read passage A I immediately understood the author had a lack of understanding of what insider trading is, not only this in line 8 we learn he is not talking about the average investor but stock brokers. This is what his argument is built about.

When I read Passage B i immediately understood he's now talking about all traditional and regular investors.

Answer choice E in question 19 literally reflects this.

Out of all my answer choices which I got all correct on this passage, i was MOST confident in my answer of question 19. How is it possible it is not E. I'm utterly dumbfounded.

Q13.

AC D is literally a catalyst of the great migration. JY says it is a random alternative hypothesis when it is explicitly not. Line 10 states AC D is a Catalyst of the great depression. Therefore your analysis of why AC D is wrong is incorrect as JY "Assumes" this is a made up hypothesis.

The reason I think it's wrong is because the question stem is asking us for support of the authors analysis. Implying the answer won't be explicitly stated since we are supporting it via outside information. I was stuck between D and E and went with what IS explicitly stated and I fell for the trap. Supporting an analysis of a hypothesis is never going to be re-stating a premise of that hypothesis which is what answer choice D does. B on the other hand is OUTSIDE information that does support the analysis.

Outside information vs inside information is the trick here. I can't believe I fell for this. Noted LSAT.

I just asked myself this! I was dumbfounded.

19 is too much of a time crunch, i'd likely circle it and come back to it if I had time. Q22 seemed to be the easiest question for me, I suppose it's all the must be true drilling in LR that factored into this one. Lol

Imagine North America has:

10 rodent species, each with 100,000 individuals (totaling 1,000,000 rodents).

1 deer species with 200,000 individuals.

1 bat species with 150,000 individuals.

Here, (B) would be true because rodent species generally have large populations (100,000 each). But (D) would be false because the deer species has the largest population (200,000) of any single species.

This is probably the hardest LSAT question I have ever seen. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

This question is an absolute joke. How 89% got this question correct is beyond me.

Wow, not only is the assumption extremely difficult to find. The answer choice doesn't even tell us the assumption being made. It gives us a scenario if applied to the argument that would make the assumption being made invalid. That's a super tough find.

but A can't be true if they demonstrate extenuating circumstances. #help

AC A gives us no information pertaining to the homeowner. What about the homeowner who did demonstrate extenuating circumstances. A can't apply.

#9.

Line 50 tells us "relieving pressure on ocean fisheries" is and means "reducing fishing efforts".

The question asks us to find the closet meaning of "relieving pressure on ocean fisheries" aka "reducing fishing efforts"

c- Causing fewer wild fish to be caught

d- reducing the amount of income to be earned from ocean fishing

AC D is closest to this definition. I don't understand how it could be C. #help

Let me try..

The issue is not the conclusion. The issue (flaw) is the comparison.

Originally the conclusion is drawn from a comparison between two groups.

People who report back pain from desk job vs. People who work construction but don't report back pain. The conclusion decides to say: it must be office furniture that is causing the back pain!

This argument above essentially asks us to assume that construction work has to cause way worse back pain than an office job, after all, it puts more stress on the back!

But AC E tells us something about this assumption we naturally made. It tells us Construction work aka physical exercise is actually helping & curing back pain!

Now if I compare again without my initial assumption due to the guidance of AC E... People who report back pain from desk job vs. People who work construction but don't report back pain. The conclusion decides to say: it must be office furniture that is causing the back pain!

Well hold on, I can't make the conclusion that it's office furniture causing back pain! We are comparing two groups who are not on the same playing field. One group is the normal office workers, the other group are construction workers who can somehow heal their back! The conclusion itself now makes absolutely no sense because making a comparison here is absurd. That's what weakens the argument!

AC A - Requires us to make an assumption about when they are at home. Negate.

AC B- Requires us to make an assumption that "disliking selling policies" equates to "Absolutely not selling any policies". Negate.

AC C- Requires us to make an assumption that "encouraged" means they definitely will listen to what they are encouraged to do. Negate.

AC D- Actually strengthens the argument. Negate.

AC E - Requires to assume that "Consistent physical exercise" is considered physical labor. Very light assumption. Comparing this assumption to the all the other assumptions. It's the lightest one. If we accept the assumption than it solves the issue. How can we make a conclusion that compares two groups who are not of the same playing field as discussed above!

I hope this helps.

What's annoying is I totally identified the flaw. I would have gotten this question correct if it wasn't for those hidden referential phrases!

Technically even if you included the premise into your conditional chain you will get answer B. I don't recommend not including it as you might be confused including or not including something that you should or should not have.

If your kind to someone —> Want that person to prosper

Dislike each other —> Treat each other with respect

Dislike each other —> /Content in each others presence

If you /dislike each other —> You are kind to someone.

If you /dislike each other —> You are kind to someone. —> Want that person to prosper

/treat each other with respect —> If you /dislike each other —> You are kind to someone. —> Want that person to prosper

Content in each others presence —> If you /dislike each other —> You are kind to someone. —> Want that person to prosper

I still got B from my chain.

I eliminated E because of the word likelihood. Just because i'm more likely to drink water because i'm thirstier than you doesn't mean i'm going to drink water. So AC E requires you to make the assumption that this likelihood leads to an expected outcome. No likelihood ever leads to any outcome unless the stimulus states it leads to that outcome. The stimulus does say this outcome occurred, but it doesn't say it was because of this likelihood. Any question that requires you to make an assumption in MSS is most likely wrong.