@rebg1995 "It likely leads to some convicted criminals' receiving sentence reductions that are unwarranted" just means that at least one of these instances has occurred. It doesn't mean that these instances frequently occur.

BR might reflect someone's understanding under non-timed conditions, but I don't think it's more accurate as a "true score" since the real LSAT is timed. I think that the most accurate predictor of a score would be an average of recent PTs, taken under timed testing conditions. Assuming that your testing environment will be quieter than the one at home, your timed tests might not be an accurate predictor, either.

It'll be hard for people who don't know you, your analytics, or your study schedule to tell you if a certain score is feasible by June. Personally, I think that expecting a 20 point score increase in less than 2 months is pretty unrealistic, especially if you have other responsibilities (work/school/kids). Think about your starting point—is a 20 point jump in 1.5 months realistic based on your rate of growth this past semester? But at the end of the day, I'm just a stranger on the internet. You know yourself best in terms of how much time you're able to put in, and how much growth is feasible.

Even if I get 100% on a drill, the score is typically lower than my average PT score. I assume PT scores are more accurate.

The premise is about the preferences of insects. The existence of pesticidal toxins doesn't explain that. Pesticides deter insects by killing them. Don't assume that pesticides deter insects because insects don't like to feed on them.

Powerscore provides a more in-depth explanation of (E) here: https://forum.powerscore.com/viewtopic.php?t=1476

#feedback Lamarck's belief isn't the same as A. His belief was that "an animal's use or disuse of an organ affected that organ's development in the animal's offspring". (A) is something that most or all biologists probably think is true—it makes sense that an organ's use or disuse can affect that organ's health and development.

(B) is almost a MBT, right?

I can't think of a scenario in which (B) could false other than this gap:

prepared to vote for [a bill] ≠ bill passed into law

If we're looking for an MBT, B is not one because it overlooks the possibility that representatives being prepared to vote for a bill doesn't necessarily imply that the bill is passed into law

@businessgoose I don't think I agree with that. I'm curious about where the 50% number came from—maybe even losing 25% of business due to a lack of indoor seating is enough to make a place fail, especially if it's surrounded by strong competitors.

#feedback The written explanation for (C) states that the analogy isn’t between the info processed by a brain and the info transmitted by the Internet. However, JY says that this is descriptively accurate (but the issue is that the analogy itself isn't the dubious part). So, these explanations seem to contradict

IMO, the written explanation is correct: "An analogy is a comparison between two different things that highlights their similarities to explain, clarify, or illustrate a complex idea." The analogy is between the brain and the internet, and similarities used to draw this analogy include how the brain and internet both transmit information from a complex collection (of either computers or neurons). So, the analogy isn’t really between the information processed by a brain and the information transmitted by the internet.

I did, however, appreciate JY's explanation about why the analogy itself wasn't the issue, rather the conclusion that was dubiously based on the analogy

Something that threw me off for (E) is that it discusses something that is "actually true", and the conclusion is that something "is not true". Along with the complex wording that I didn't have time to parse out, I erroneously eliminated it.

During blind review, I had time to break it down:

• If a particular thesis were correct: Appearance alone entirely determines whether or not something is considered a work of art 

• Showing that something would be impossible… is actually true:

  Warhol’s Brillo Boxes is considered a work of art, while an identical stack of ordinary boxes wouldn’t be

  The fact that one is considered a work of art and one is not would be impossible if appearance alone entirely determines whether or not something is considered a work of art, since these two are “visually indistinguishable”. However, the author asserts that this is true, concluding that the thesis is not. This matches (E)

Selecting (B): The conclusion is basically the contrapositive of the premise, with a flaw:

P: All farmers organically farm → /enough food

–––––––

C: Enough food → /organic farming spreads further

The contrapositive should've been:

Enough food → /all farmers organically farm

In order for the argument to stand, the author assumes that all farmers organically farm =  organic farming spreads further. (B) highlights that this assumption is questionable

I eliminated (C) because both the conclusion and the premise (study) refer to gifts chosen for people by others. So what if there's some variation within that set? The premises and conclusion are both about that set in general, and breaking it down further doesn't help. Also, the comparison is cash/gift cards vs gifts chosen by others, not gifts from close friends/relatives vs gifts chosen by others.

Answer Choice (A):

Many people believe...

• Etiquette has no beneficial effects for society

• Kindness and social harmony are good

These are not contradictory views about etiquette. First, there's only one view about etiquette attributed to these critics, and that one view certainly isn't contradicting itself. Second, the two bullet points don't contradict. If we're just focusing on the critics' set of beliefs, these beliefs could very well coexist.

As Sydney said below, "a person’s views are only “contradictory” if the contradiction exists within what THEY themselves believe. Not based on outside facts". This doesn't happen here.

Answer Choice (D): The passage says that "[Mary] will be considered for the grant only if her application is mailed ten days before the due date". "Only if" indicates a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition. In other words, it simply indicates a requirement for grant consideration. (D) states that the author presumes that this condition is sufficient instead.

Group 1 (sufficient): if, when, where, all, the only, every, any

Group 2 (necessary): only, only if, only when, only where, always, must

Group 3 (negate, sufficient): or, unless, until, without

Group 4 (negate, necessary): no, none, not both, never, cannot

@yc5202322 A credible conclusion should be backed by evidence. Just because it's been around for a long time or in some history books doesn't mean it's credible. In this case, the evidence doesn't seem to hold it up: "But, in addition to a lack of written evidence of such an event in any ancient Indian records, there is no archaeological evidence of battles within the cities."

I almost selected (E) because I thought that either severe drought or massive earthquakes (the two alternate explanations proposed by the author) would lead to "the catastrophic alteration of the courses of its major rivers." However, upon reflection, I realized that a drought wouldn't necessarily do so—it could make some lands unfarmable, dry up the soil, and potentially reduce the volume of the rivers, but there's no reason to assume that it would change the course of the rivers.

This is how I approach these principle questions:

1. Map out the answer choice in my head. If the necessary condition of either the original version or the contrapositive does not match the conclusion of the stimulus, I eliminate it.

2. If there are multiple options remaining, I select the one that is triggered by the information in the stimulus.

#feedback I watched the explanation video, and I don't think it's true that the edited version of (A) would work ("Few people want to sit outside while they eat at the new fast-food place on 10th street"). Xavier would agree with it, but Miranda might not.

Perhaps many people want to sit outside, but not enough. It could be that out of 100 potential clients, 50 want to sit inside, and 50 want to sit outside. While a significant number want to sit outside, a business lacking in indoor seating would be likely to fail because it deters 50% of the potential clients from coming.

Eliminating (A):

This answer was tempting because it could explain why the fifth force wasn’t detected earlier—perhaps the instruments were less accurate. This might mean that the data that we have now is more trustworthy than the data from the past, since we have better equipment to gather it

However, there are a few reasons why (A) doesn’t strengthen:

• This technology wasn’t available before the 1970s, but the stimulus said that “Before 1986 physicists believed they could describe the universe in terms of four universal forces”. So what happened between the 1970s and 1986 (potentially a 16 year gap)? Was this technology in use but unable to detect a fifth force?

• In order for (A) to be relevant, we also have to assume that the reason why a fifth force wasn’t detected in the past was because the technology was unsophisticated. However, the passage never states that older equipment was unable to measure those small differences, so that would be an unwarranted assumption

• Finally, the main issue with (A) is that the stimulus isn’t trying to demonstrate that the results (the occurrence of a smaller measurement of attraction than predicted) are legitimate. It’s trying to make an argument about how those results can be explained. Regardless of why this data wasn’t detected in the past, we know it’s detected now—but does a fifth universal force explain it?. There could be alternate explanations for these results. (A) might help to show why we never came up with this theory before, but does little in showing that this theory is actually correct

Eliminating (B):

I was tempted by (B) because the stimulus states that “the orbits of Earth and several other planets around our sun are approximately circular”. However, there are several issues with this answer. In order for it to strengthen the argument, we would have to make the following assumptions:

1. All of the planets rotating around our sun have circular orbits. This is not a given, since the stimulus simply states that Earth and several other planets rotating around our sun are circular. If this assumption were false, then (B) wouldn’t strengthen the argument.

2. The reason why “there is no indication that the orbit of any planet orbiting our sun has been affected by a close encounter with another planet orbiting our sun” is because these encounters have not occurred. This is not a given—perhaps these encounters did occur, but didn’t affect the planets’ orbits. If this assumption were false, then (B) would weaken the argument.

I eliminated (A) because Reade's opponents discussing SOME of the same issues as Reade doesn't mean that they discuss any complex campaign issues. Reade very likely discusses a variety of campaign issues; not all of them are necessarily complex.

I misunderstood what common law is. I thought of it as an outdated set of rules and policies that were put into place, some of which were contradicted by Bentham's more modern principal. However, this is the actual definition: "Common law is a legal system derived from judicial decisions, customs, and precedents rather than statutes enacted by legislatures. It relies on the doctrine of stare decisis, where courts follow the rules established in previous, similar cases to ensure consistency. Originating in England, it is widely used in the U.S. and other nations." So, Bentham's approach could have been integrated into common law through judicial rulings, allowing this approach to prevail. Therefore, (C) isn't supported.

An analogy helped me select (D) as the answer:

Think of cross-fertilization with plants: Bees or other external agents transfer pollen from one plant to another, increasing genetic variation (yay). Public relations agents and gossip columnists are like the bees, transferring ideas (analogous to pollen) from one industry to another. This results in cross-fertilization—the mixing of ideas between industries that is mutually beneficial. This best matches (D).

I was also tempted by (E), but (E) is vague (the interactions could be positive or negative) and focuses on public relations agents instead of the film industry.

Eliminating AC B:

A strong understanding of the main point and the structure of the passage is helpful here.

At first, I thought that (B) fit the criteria because it would increase the efficiency of resource use, improving resource management. After all, money is a resource. However, steady-state economists are talking about resource use and management as it relates to environmental depletion. Specifically, this relates to their belief that “the concept of an ever growing economy is dangerous, and that the only alternative is to maintain a state in which the economy remains in equilibrium with nature”, stated in paragraph 2. So, the discussion in paragraph 3 is about resource management as it relates to maintaining an equilibrium with nature. This is also supported by the beginning of paragraph 3, which discusses the widening disparity between indices of actual growth and the index of environmentally sustainable growth. 

It’s unclear how using a less expensive fuel would help with the problem that steady-state economists have pointed out. Using a less expensive fuel might help with conservation of money and money management, but that relates to improving cost efficiency, not a more efficient use of physical resources to maintain an equilibrium with nature. Using less fuel would help, but not cheaper fuel. 

@Bev7 I'm not an expert, so I can't say for sure. But in general, I think that patterns and trends will tell you much more than a score on one singular practice test.