So with the following sentence: "The changes also include more humorous content, simplification of difficult material, and a narrower focus on specific topics", why would it be wrong therefore to conclude children of the computer generation cannot concentrate on long, unbroken sections of prose? Is it too big of a jump or is it because the stimulus does not provide us with enough information to make a general assessment about children of the computer generation? #help

Isn't each and every scientist technically the scientific community as a whole? I am confused #help

Just realized that critics doesn't necessarily mean they are 100% against it or are strict opponents of the bill, they are concerned with what the term "wetlands" encompasses and that's where the confusion comes in because different definitions (how restrictive it is) can mean different things. I think I got it now.

But if critics of the wetlands protection bill are delaying passage of this legislation on the grounds that they disagree with the more restrictive definition of the term wetlands -- wouldn't this be in support of those for the wetland protection? Because those for wetland protection want a more broad definition, so why are critics delaying the passage of a more restrictive definition? If they are against it isn't a more restrictive definition exactly what they want? #help

So I am still kinda confused with E: "the TV talk shows of different stations resemble one another in most respects." The conclusion is: "As a result political opinions aired on TV talk shows are typically bland and innocuous." so if the TV talk shows resemble one another in most respects doesn't that fulfill the necessary assumption that the TV talk shows are typically bland and innocuous because it is saying all the TV talk shows are similar to each other? So they are all bland and innocuous? Therefore, they air only those shows that will appeal to large numbers of people makes sense? #help

I was stuck between C and D but ultimately chose C because I thought if the government does not employ as many research scientists as the private sector, then there are less spots available in the government. Therefore, scientists would have not problems finding private sector jobs, making the conclusion true. Is this wrong because the assumption is on the incentives? But don't you also have to assume that there are more spots in the private sector if the government will lose most of its research scientists? #help

Answer choice E does not say that we refunded the $600 million to the tax payers so do we just assume that because we did not fire the workers that the $600 is given back to the tax payers? #help

Thank you for your help but I still don't understand where this proportion is coming from.

I still don't understand how a higher proportion of O18 falling from the sky does not equate to more water molecules containing O18 than ordinary oxygen when there is a rainfall. If there is a raincloud with 100 Oxygen 18 and 900 normal oxygen and then it rains and "a higher proportion of all water molecules containing O18 than of all water molecules containing ordinary oxygen descends to earth." it seems as if there should be more O18 molecules.

I don't understand where this proportion of 30/100 O18 (30%) and 180/900 Normal( 20%) is coming from -- is there a water molecule within the water molecule? Why is it getting smaller?

#help

I was stuck between B and D and ultimately chose B. However, one trick that I remembered is if you negate your answer and the argument falls apart then that is the sufficient assumption and thus, the correct answer.

So for example,

B: The only way to reduce the threat to public safety posed by car phones is not through legislation. --> legislation is not the only way to reduce the threat caused by car phones

This doesn't destroy the argument

However, answer choice D:

Any proposed law that would reduce a threat to public safety should not be adopted.

This destroys the conclusion: the bill that makes using car phones while driving illegal should be adopted.

I used imperfect in my diagram and I thought that just because something is "not imperfect" that doesn't mean it is perfect? #help

I am having some trouble understanding this stimulus and the correct answer choice. #help

AC C says that "the cave paintings depicted many land animals"

Then the stimulus says: "The predominant theory about northern cave paintings was that they were largely a description of the current diets of painters."

So when I read answer choice C I thought that ok if the paintings are land animals and the stimulus says that the "paintings = diet" then that would mean they ate land animals.

So I don't understand why "we don't know if they ate land animals" if the stimulus says that paintings = diet

and what does this have to do with sea animals?

I might be interpreting this wrong, any help is appreciated thanks.

It depends on what your target score is, if you're scoring near what your goal is by July, go for it. However, I would probably consider October to be a better bet based on my experience. Try to not take the LSAT multiple times and just do it once when you're 100% ready. I took the LSAT when I wasn't 100% ready and wish I didn't. August is only 2 months away. It might be a lot working 40 hours a week and studying if you just started 2 weeks ago. You also definitely should take multiple practice tests before the LSAT and not have the LSAT be the first timed practice test you take. Best of luck. You will figure it out I am sure!