These new questions from LSAT are getting weird dude….

Ugh I thought b was right

@bellaflaherty73 agreed - got this wrong (picked B) because I’m used to trying to match structure! Damnit

I picked D (correct ac) because the first paragraph mentions "commercial facsimiles" and then the last paragraph talks about a replica made for sale

@laila2021 i got this wrong too... didnt see it as a question it was exploring!!

Yeah ima just let the smart people take this one while I cry

@HimajaReddy so how does it “challenge a premise”

F this question

this was difficult

hahaha just imagining someone driving recklessly but being paranoid a meteorite will hit their house is funny to me

was hoping there was comments on this one

I saw D as strengthening

@LevinKin7sageLSATDESTROYER actually if you think about it like a NA, then B makes total sense.

Got this right but ugh i hate except questions... it meses with my head

B is saying that he has to use all the money on its intended purpose. If that becomes impossible, he has to get permission on how to dispose of the money from the donors.

He spent all the money he could on the repairs, but there was still leftover money. He wanted to use the left over money to use on other animal shelters. B allows for him to do that, if that is what the donors want to do. He just has to ask. So if he asks, and they say yes, then he can use that money elsewhere for however they approve it.

This is why it fits with the premises and conclusion. He used all the money only on that cause but is now wanting to use the money that is impossible to still spend on the original cause, since it is taken care of, and it is saying he has to get the wishes of the donors.. aka their permission. If he gets their permission, then he can use the extra money for how it is approved / disposed.

WS --[ALL]--> HL <--[/S]--> PJ

PJ<--[/S]--> WS

or even think about it like this

Take the WS--[ALL]-->HL and turn it into

WS<--[S]-->HL

so now you have

WS <--[S]-->HL <--[/S]--> PJ

Which means....

Some that have part time jobs don't go home for lunch, and some that have part time jobs that don't go home from lunch do not walk to school....

So now we have a sufficient assumption built so we can say that "It follows that some students who have part-time jobs do not walk to school"

only got B from process of elimination!

got E right just from process of elimination

wth, what a terrible question.. this is the only one i missed in section 3

well... i knew it was an analogy... but I didn't think anything was really wrong with the comparison

bro prep test101 has a lot of questions that got people heated

ugh

not finding /=/ not believing

@JohnathanBenson2030 got this wrong too but seems like A is more of a judgement, it being right or wrong

the conclusion is about naming them a murder or not a murder, not about it being right or wrong

so we need another premise that says that what the people are doing in the stimulus is murder... so, to me it feels like a sufficient assumption kind of question... we needed that bridge

eh this is when you think an AC like A works but then you realize there is a better answer... punished if you dont read all AC

@tyraimann So... ive actually seen this flaw after a few months of studying for the first times... I cannot recall seeing this listed as a famous flaw though when I was learning theory... but Im with you, its understanding sufficient vs necessary....

IF they increase profit ---> all staff get bonus

We know company did not profit, so the staff bonus is not triggered... speaker says this is fair while other people claim it is unfair...

You have to understand that there are many more things that can go in that spot to trigger the staff bonus

Maybe the company also said

IF everyone wears red tomorrow --> all staff get bonus

And all staff wore red tomorrow. So, they should get the bonus. But.. the company didn't.

Also, from the condition in the stim, we don't know what is fair and what isn't fair. We just know increase profit -> bonus and /bonus -> /profit