got this right

but just here to say

this question is a prime example of POE!

this one is a skip for me - no clue what I needed to understand here

f this question

btw any2 needing the quick answer:

The stim is flawed because we don't know if the food is good

D is flawed because we don't know if the meat is seasoned

i hate evaluate questions dude

How is it D?

The conclusion is based on %

IYKYK that you don't want to mix % &#

this made no sense

LSATLab has this at level 5 with B at correct AC of 37%. That is the lowest correct AC I have ever seen.

Anyone else pick B?

I don't even wanna understand this one...

If you got it down between A & E, that is good.

So, the conditional is really specific. It ONLY applies to actions that harmed another person.

Does A harm another person? No. What is tricky is that we can infer tat the letter was intended to, but it did not have that effect. Because it does not actually harm the person, it doesn't conform to this situation.

Does E harm another person? Yes. He took his eyes off the child, she ran into the street and got hit by a bike. Okay, so now that we know that this harms another person, does it satisfy the conditional? Yes. Because Reasonable forethought would show that the action (not watching a kid) was likely to cause harm (which it did).

Roxanne would DISAGREE with B. She clearly states that the markets are INDEPENDENT. So it does not matter about the supply and demand of old vs new.

I think it is a little more difficult to see right away what Salvador's opinion on this is... but he would AGREE with B. He says that refraining from buying ANY ivory at all would cause a demand for new ivory to drop. So he thinks that a decrease in demand for old would cause a decrease in demand for new.

We are looking for an AC where they have conflicting opinion. For AC B, speaker 1 disagrees, and speaker 2 agrees, so that is the answer.

This is a contrapositive disguise question.

You needed to look at what was first given and recognize that it gives you a conditional (diagram that) and then it states the conditional's contrapositive (flip it).

Stimulus:

If not supported -> not allowed (CONDITIONAL)

If allowed -> supported (CONTRAPOSITIVE)

Answer choice (A):

If not arrested -> not break law (CONDITIONAL)

If break law -> arrested (CONTRAPOSITIVE)

Parallel match are big time sinkers. Lots of reading, diagramming... the way it is written is designed to be confusing.

@memhas I'm wondering if it is because the AC said CONCLUSION and not INTERMEDIATE conclusion?

This was hard! I picked E, I thought it was supporting an INT conclusion...

this passage and questions were hard

@brianshirazi278 honestly this was a really good time for me to take a few min and learn arguing vs suggesting!

I chose E. Needed chatGPT's help with this one....

If an author introduces an alternative explanation using “might,” “could,” or “instead,” the role is to undermine exclusivity—not to argue for that explanation.

E says the anthropologist “argues that those events occurred in a different sequence.”

But the anthropologist does not argue that - she suggests it, but does not argue it.

good example of COULD be true vs what MUST be true

B - MBT

D - CBT

I thought it about it like this... D seems like it could be the answer, but even though they could have burned more, what if the also mined more?

Looking at the stimulus, what is each year they mined but didn't get any coal?

If you want see it in math terms...

1990: total = 100 , mined = 0

1991: total = "considerably lower" 50, mined = 0

It fits with the stimulus, that in 1991 there is less coal. So what MUST be true, bare bones?

That in 1991 they consumed more than they mined. That allows you to get a number less than 100.. or 50 in this case since it is a "considerably lower" number

@anggggg88 I totally understood the stimulus but had no clue what to do with this unstated assumption that ive never seen a question like this b4.. how do you determine the role of something that was not said?

ugh I picked e.. thought c was too obvious

@Stas1973 Hey I just did this one today.

So this stimulus is saying that large planets protect planets (like earth) that could have life on them from comets hitting them by absorbing those comets. If a comet hit a planet like earth, it could kill the intelligent life. So it's saying these planets that could have intelligent life need big plants to protect them (like bodyguards).

With these evaluate questions (I recommend PowerScore they do a good job teaching about this question type) you want extreme answers!

With D, you are asking "well what are the chances that in another solar system large comets even exist like the example it gives from our own solar system?" What I thought of was, what if in other solar systems there aren't even comets?

So you can have an extreme AC here by saying, 100% (meaning, there are for sure comets here than can destroy the small planet, so then these bigger planets really do matter as bodyguards) to 0% (meaning, well if there are not even any comets in this system, then why do the bodyguard planets even matter? The planet that can have intelligent life doesn't need bodyguards if there are no comets that are going to hit them).

So this question is really good to evaluate the argument. Because we can weaken that argument if that system does not have comets, thereby his conclusion no longer applies... or, in other words, the conclusion relies on there being comets in all other systems when perhaps that is not the case.

Wow this one was a PITA but got it right...

Took me 4 minutes... time killer!

This is why POE needs to be a thing man when you read something and go "huh?" because the way A is written is verbose and purposefully so!

dumb dude

the last part of ac A is ridiculous to see how it matches for us non-genius people

why is D wrong

dude I hate mss