Damn, that referential phrasing really got me. It's so obvious once you realize that "the only ones" is referring to "the paintings from our city's art movement."

really great section -- love the summary review at the end too!

the defense of the semicolon :')

#help What's the difference between 'Question Difficulty' and 'Psg/Game/S Difficulty'?

'male gaze' vs 'colonial gaze'

now im imagining a bunch of colonials gawking at hot chicks

'oh that's grandma'

BUT SHE DIED 50 YEARS AGO ( ˶°ㅁ°) !!

Diggin the comic book style illustrations

If a promise is never kept, how is that different from being unreliable?

What is an "unreliable promise" if it's not a promise that isn't upheld...? #help

The conclusion is a comparative statement about crops today versus in the past.

But, the answer B doesn't indicate whether it's true of today, the past, or both. I think it needed to say something like "Today, and unlike in the past, .... affected crops can quickly..."

I got confused because the conclusion is comparative, and yet the answer is not.

How can the negation of B be 'All people in Beethoven's time did ingest mercury'?

I thought the logical negation of 'Some' (1-100) is 'None' (0).

#help

For those confused about Q15, "appreciation" has two definitions:

1. recognition and enjoyment of the good qualities of someone/something

2. a full understanding of a situation

LSAT uses the second definition here.

A comes with two assumptions:

1. the first several seconds are enough for shoppers to decide on a purchase (where they probably got the Styron hammers)

2. 'detailed' notice includes the sale and display cases

Yeah, I don't like it. But it's the only one that MAYBE KINDA SLIGHTLY explains.

B also comes with an assumption: OK, sure, customers care more about quality and service -- but, do we even know that the Styron hammers are better in this regard? No, this is an even worse assumption.

I've heard J.Y. say "so what?" so many times that I just instinctively said that for B. "So what? Did they finish them? Don't know."

Turns out for every other question, we're not supposed to make assumptions like that, but this one, we are. All the answer says is that they began a major road project 5 years ago -- maybe it takes 10 years to finish one. Maybe they took a break from working on it. Why are we supposed to assume it's finished?

So dumb.

All the ingredients laid out on the table:

Pay Attention --> Intrinsic Properties

Extrinsic Properties --> Not Relevant

[ for example, Pay Attention (worded as "consider") --> Directly Present ]

-------

Relevant --> Not Symbol

Relevant --> Directly Present

From this, I can make two inferences:

Not Extrinsic Properties --> Not Symbol

Intrinsic Properties --> Directly Present or Directly Present --> Intrinsic Properties (the direction is ambiguous)

From this, I honestly think both A and C fills the gap in the argument, because there are technically two gaps/inferences. The ONLY way you can know the right gap to choose is to go off of the suggestion that "new ideas" bear more weight to be explained for than other ideas. Very difficult, hope I don't see anything like this come up ever again.

👏👏👏 You know what, LSAT -- you got me this time, you really did. Well played.

I really do not understand how not containing a "significant" amount of tellerium is enough to imply that these isotopes did not come from spent fuel rods.

Like JY contends, it doesn't mean there wasn't any tellerium, just a bit. To me, this could still be a very reasonable explanation for the isotopes in the air. I don't even know the proportion of the isotopes -- maybe there's a ton of iodine, just a teensy tiny bit of tellerium, and half of it is cesium. Who knows? What if that small amount of tellerium is totally representative, and it's plenty enough to simply detect tellerium in the atmosphere. Honestly, if I found just 5% of tellerium in the air, and I knew that spent fuel rods only have 5% quantities of tellerium, it'd be a good indication that spent fuel rods are the source!

I have problems with AC B -- it feels like it requires the COMPLETE elimination of spent fuel rods as a source of the radioactive material. It's almost saying "it couldnt have been the spent fuel rods, so it was the steam combined with the planet's core!"

If we look at all the pieces we have on the table, at the end of the day, we don't know whether SFR (spent fuel rods) have heavy isotopes, but we equally don't know if PC + Steam (planet's core + steam) have heavy isotopes (because we don't know steam's effect on the heavy isotopes in PC). So what can we go off of? The isotopes of I, T, and C. To which both have possibility of contributing, but SFR may be SLIGHTLY LESS so IF YOU ASSUME it's underrepresenting the actual proportion of tellerium in the air.

bruh

:C

Got too picky here. If D had said "any POWERFUL volcanic eruptions..." I would've picked it in a heartbeat. Knowing the stimulus specifically specified powerful eruptions, I wondered if D was a trap -- there could be a million tiny eruptions, and that would not matter.

But I guess it's not a stretch to assume of these alternative volcanic eruptions, they could be powerful enough to produce ash.

Wow, totally didn't see C during the timed run.

The new idea in the conclusion is "justified" -- we need to bridge that gap. Automatically, you can eliminate A and B from just that alone. They don't talk about what is justified.

D and E can be eliminated as well.

D is such a classic trap; just because something is sufficient doesn't mean it's necessary.

E is essentially the opposite of what the stimulus is saying (and is quite strong with the "never")

C is the correct answer here. The motive refers to "...in order to fund an account to compensate burglary victims" and that premise is used to support the conclusion that the confiscation is justified.

Hmmm I'm not super sure on this one. Am I overthinking this?

It seems to me like the stimulus is making very broad arguments -- like "Earth's human population" and "water shortages will plague humankind."

For that reason, I eliminated B because I thought that even if some regions have water shortages, that doesn't mean humankind will be suffering, only a small portion of it.

I think the assumption I would have to make to select B is at least that if some regions are affected, that's enough to conclude that humankind overall is affected. Though the wording in the stimulus is so strong, and the answer choice is so weak in comparison.

POE is the way to go here, because all the other ACs suck too. I was stuck between B and E in the end of the timed run, and equally hated both. But I see now B is better, with an assumption that's not outrageously far-fetched.

Wow big bruh moment -- I interpreted "from science to humanities" as the range starting from science all the way to humanities.

I see now it's about the perspective from scientists to humanists...