Okay the fact that B is an actual improvement in SPECIFICALLY deer life and is wrong is crazy to me. It leaves open the possibility that there could be a part of North America where there is a deer boom. Like the places where these attempts are being made. Much in the same way that C is wrong; the total number of deer can increase in these areas, even though there is encroachment in other areas. Less of one thing (deer habitats) does not guarantee another the decline of another (deer). Of course there is an assumption but compared to A, which asks you to assume that they are even talking about deer being in a 51% (most) of a population of wildlife come on.

A on the other hand asks you to make an assumption that deer is included in its "most" claim. Huge assumption to make. There is also a 10 year gap, when the author could mean that it literally started in the 1960s. Two very large assumptions.

"Attempts" makes the answer choice worse, but in comparison to

C is wrong clearly because one hunter could kill 40 deer, it doesn't really matter how many of them are if the number killed stays the same

With all that said I see the logic, but dear looooorddddd

This one was a struggle because "copies" feels descriptively inaccurate. How was I supposed to know tulips can copy themselves. Seeds are offspring bro

If you refer to the plant as “the plant” instead of getting lost in this dumbass name that it keeps saying; this question becomes very easy

This question some bullshit, but I get why it is correct now. The thing to look out for is the separation of the support from the answer choice. Mentioning the range of glass transition could be a couple hundred degrees is the only support we get for "its upper extreme being well above 350 degrees Celsius". It creates a disconnection between the two ideas. It is far from valid to infer that this is true, but everything else is truly inaccurate. Good question for practicing with.

#6

So on question 6, I know I'm mistaking sufficiency for necessity, but I can't see how. The diagraming I did was eligible -> IW and 501C, then I had the correct contrapositive of this. I'm not seeing how Eligibility is not considered the sufficient piece for having both of these, as they are both required for eligibility (necessary). The way it is written up in the lesson the eligibility is necessary for IW and 501C, which doesn't make sense. Can someone explain or confirm this? Is there wording that I'm missing?

Hello, fellow splitter here. I can't speak for Canadian law school, but 2.9 with a good LSAT (160-170) has a good shot to get into anything below top fifty. The higher your LSAT, the better. Splitters are fairly common, and sometimes it will come down to what an admissions class looks like. If they have your exact opposite candidate with a high GPA and a low LSAT, they might balance out your admissions with each other. From what I understand, it is just a numbers game. They want to have certain medians, which means better rankings for their school. A GPA addendum explaining extenuating circumstances will help if nothing else, but your main predictor for admission will be your LSAT. If it's high enough, you should have a large selection of schools to choose from, and with a 2.9, I would say 165 should be a goal score, but 160 could get you into a smaller school. Hope this helps!