How on earth can we assume that just because a nucleomorph is within a chlorarachniophyte, that the chlorachniophye emerged as a result of it. Absolutely wild reasoning, no reason to infer this. Unsupported.

"one does so in the hope or expectation of benefiting someone other than oneself"

Negate

"one does not do so in the hope or expectation of benefiting someone other than oneself."

Now, does A satisfy that ground? I feel like "no one" precludes the possibility of satisfying those grounds which restated basically says he hoped to benefit only himself.

So modernism may have developed far before modern art developed, no? How could he have helped modernism develop if this was the case?

I get that D is a could be true as well but C is just not at all strongly supported. It's missing the word art to narrow the class.

b

It is used as partial support for a claim about the motivation of the city.

{This question is multifaceted. It could be used as support for a claim about how the city is. But it's negative is the support, like if they didn't use driver education then it would not become a safe place.}

this was my reason for ruling out B. Not sure why it's wrong.

Hopefully this helps someone

If understanding a word always involves knowing its dictionary definition, then understanding a word requires understanding the words that occur in that definition. But clearly there are people—for example, all babies—who do not know the dictionary definitions of some of the words they utter.

all babies do not understand some of the words they utter

2.

Which one of the following statements follows logically from the statements above?

a

Some babies utter individual words that they do not understand.

{this has to be true only if we assume that understanding a word requires understanding all the defintions of the words they utter. Otherwise we can't say that they don't understand the words they utter. Even if we are told that they do not know them. It's not sufficient fo concluding that they don't understand even though it is the grounds of the contrapositive of the 2nd clause.}

b

Any number of people can understand some words without knowing their dictionary definitions.

c

If some words can be understood without knowing their dictionary definitions, then babies understand some words.

d

If it is possible to understand a word without knowing its dictionary definition, then it is possible to understand a word without having to understand any other word.

e

If some babies understand all the words they utter, then understanding a word does not always involve knowing its dictionary definition.

{this is true. We are given grounds that babies don't know the dictionary definition of the words they utter. That being said, if we assume that they understand the words they utter then they understand them and don't know the dictionary definitions, which is a contradiction of the rule in the 2nd clause, but this answer choice gives us this contradiction as a consequence of our assumption which follows roundly.}

======================================

In the explanation it says that "Brancusi's did rely on light and shadow." This is unsupported, all we know is that he pondered this theme. However, we don't know for sure that they didn't so it's not a good answer.

My main issue with this is that D doesn't allow us to conclude that it is well founded, which is our overall conclusion. It just allows us to conclude that there is a real danger such a situation will arise.

Yes, we are given grounds to trigger the consequence that the situation will arise. But how can we further conclude that given that the danger is real then the public's fear is well founded.

I know this seems like a common sense leap but we aren't allowed to do that on the LSAT haha. As far as I'm concerned were stuck at there is a real danger without any way of concluding that the publics fear is well founded.

Someone help , plz!

Hey, I'm interested! Not in boston but same time zone. I'm taking it in November as well.

Wouldn't assuming D make it so that it is necessarily the correct one? There wouldn't be any other possible explanation...

My issue is that land distribution can 100% be a social policy. IF I tell you that they are about to cut down the half the forests in yellowstone, are you objecting to that on social grounds? IF I tell you that a community who depends on some forest to live, is about to have that forest cut down: IS that a social issue?

I get social policy versus social issue but I just don't have the wherewithal to frame it in terms of policy, it can easily be done.

This passage establishes the claim that scholars have overlooked some nuances and then goes into all the nuances they mentioned as support for this claim. I'm not sure how A is wrong.

• the typical approach to autobiography doesn’t capture the approach of Native Americans to autobiography.

You even say it yourself here. Just replace doesn't capture with overlook. Everything in the passage has been designed to support this.

"It has become increasingly common for key information to disappear"

"During the same time period"

These two premises made me completely rule out D. Who cares if key information disappeared 3 months ago? We are concerned with the point that the frequency at which key information is disappearing is increasing during the same time period as this new device was installed.

We want to weaken this, so let's try to attribute another cause to this increase in frequency.

I picked E because maybe it has something to do with a third indirect factor with large airports.

More explicitly. D seems like it would be right if instead the stim said: "key information disappears rather regularly these days. We think it's because of this new anticollision system that was installed around the same time the information started its regular disappearance trend."

And the weakener

"No way jim! the anticollision system was installed 3 months after this info disappearing trend started occuring, and it hasn't increased since! Given this, the connection seems absurd; wouldn't u say?!"

I don't like the word rigid. Couldn't I say that modern evidence law is more rigid on its stance that evidence be admitted?

"expect it not to benefit someone other than oneself" is the misread negation here

"not expect it to benefit someone other than oneself" is the proper negation.

The proper negation leads us to answer A.

The improper one leads us to D but even with D we don't know that jarrett hopes not to gain prestige for others. SO even with the improper reading, D would be wrong.

Why is C wrong? Doesn't he want this to be excluded. Doesn't he prefer that this is excluded?

I thought B was correct because people who produce enough insulin don't produce excessive insulin. If they produced excessive insulin then they would store simple carbs as fat. If they produced just enough insulin then a high intake of carbs from the low fat diet would cause them to produce more than enough insulin. When they produce more than enough insulin they are overprocessing or not optimizing the processing of simple sugars and starches. Perhaps this is where my chain falls apart, but I'm thinking that this causes them to store the excess energy as fat. This would mean that the class of people who produce enough insulin should not feel compelled to make their bodies produce more by adopting low-fat diets.

Couple of errors I may have made.

Low fat diets don't necessarily mean diets high in carbs, but the stim does lead me to believe that these are contained in each other.

More insulin doesn't necessarily mean that we are storing the broken down sugars as fat. Maybe we actually need them to create energy.

I thought D was wrong because people with high intake of foods in simple carbs don't necessarily produce too much insulin. This made me question whether or not this statement was supported. If I could word it in a way that makes me choose the answer I would say, "If you don't want to gain body fat, then don't eat too many simple carbs." That's the minimum logical mood that I would go with anything less seems like a trivial statement that is unsupported. The guy didn't say normal amounts would produce fat and what if we limited normal amounts? We weren't gaining fat and we still wouldn't be gaining fat.

I guess it is always safe to assume that if you wish to avoid gaining body fat then watch your carb intake.

If you can't hold the belief about UFO's does that mean you can't hold the belief about extraterrestrials? Does this work as a conditional?

It's simply not synonymous. Informed lifestyle choices is a tertiary cause that potentially contributes to both the occurrence of high education levels and good health. D should read "assumes without justification that the same thing contributes to both causes."

Imagine the explanation they give for D, I'll copy paste it here: "The author overlooks the possibility that the correlation between good health and education is due to a thing that causes both good health and education (such wealth or genetics)."

now let's substitute with the actual terms in the stim

The author overlooks the possibility that the correlation between good health and education is due to a thing that causes both good health and education (informed lifestyle decisions).

I'm sorry but just simply assuming that the class of people with high education levels is congruent/synonymous with the class of people who make informed lifestyle decisions is ridiculously specious.