I got the answer choice right the first time by process of elimination, but wasn't sure why it was the correct answer choice so during blind review I diagrammed it.

Here's a visual of how I was able to understand it more:

Premise 1: official guideline

Premise 2: convince some people → expert

Conclusion: almost anyone can be an expert

JY uses X therefore Y and the missing premise is X → Y, but that didn't make any sense to me.

It was clearer to see what was missing by doing X → Y therefore Y, so what's missing is that the stimulus forgot to affirm the sufficient condition (X) in order to conclude Y. X is "convince some people" and is found in answer choice A.

Then I noticed that "almost anyone" is missing in the premise so that also needs to be a part of the missing premise in order to complete the conclusion.

A: this is the correct answer. See explanation above.

B: No - You don't have to convince "everyone" and your qualifications don't have to be in "almost every area."

C: No - this could be true, but according to the stimulus, you only need to convince some people and not actually have to be qualified. You could be qualified, but not be able to convince some people, which means you can't conclude the conclusion.

D: No - this was a mistaken reversal of premise 2 (expert → convince some people).

E: No - you don't have to convince "almost everyone," just some.

I didn't use conditional reasoning here. I didn't even think of diagramming this question.

Premise: The police only chased the suspect because he ran away after seeing them. It was only coincidental that the police found the suspect in possession of an illegal weapon. The judge says that evidence collected during an illegal chase is inadmissible.

Conclusion: Evidence in the case was inadmissible

Assumptions:

- The police had no valid reason to chase the suspect. They didn't even know about the illegal weapon until they chased after the suspect.

- The police must have a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act before they chase after a suspect. Having a reasonable suspicion means they can legally chase someone.

Answer Choices:

A) This goes against the stimulus and we don't know anything about "other significant factors involved."

B) We don't care about when suspects can legally flee. The stimulus also only mentions that fleeing doesn't mean it's a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act. This doesn't help the argument.

C) This is correct. It strengthens the argument and also addresses the assumption as stated above.

D) This is generally saying that fleeing from the police is not considered a criminal act. It doesn't help the argument or fill the assumption.

E) This was tricky for me. I thought this was too general. The stimulus talks about fleeing from the police, but this generally says "a person's actions," which was broad for me.

Premises

- new lower ceiling on halibut catches

- law of supply and demand

Conclusion

- increase in the price of the fish

Assumption aka the missing premise. What do we need to strengthen the argument and make it almost perfect?

We can assume that "new lower ceiling" = lower supply, so what about demand? The demand will either increase or stay the same.

Answer choices:

A) This is the correct answer. The assumption that we have is that the demand will either increase or stay the same, which is captured here by saying it will not decrease.

B) Doesn't strengthen in any way. This was already mentioned in the stimulus. A rephrase of an existing premise doesn't help.

C) We don't care about the production of other fish. It doesn't help the argument.

D) We don't care about the demand for other fish. It doesn't help the argument.

E) We don't care about the amount consumed for halibut. It doesn't help the argument.

This one was tough.

Premises:

1) oral tradition improves memory

2) writing has no limits so it can proliferate and confuse the audience

3) oral traditions eradicate useless and irrelevant information

Conclusion: oral traditions are often preferable to written ones

Answer choices:

A) Initially I thought there was an issue about accuracy between the traditions, but no where was it mentioned in the stimulus so adding information to about won’t help the argument. Also, we don’t know which tradition - written or oral - is more accurate in this answer choice. It mentions “in communication,” but that could be either oral or written, or something else.

B) This doesn’t help the conclusion. We don’t care about what literate populations want to do. It doesn’t support why oral tradition is preferred over written.

C) This doesn’t help the conclusion too. Which tradition is this answer choice talking about? It wants us to assume what “tradition“ and “accumulation of greater knowledge” are.

D) This is the correct answer. It adds further support to premise 2 and 3 (as stated above). I didn’t connect the ideas at first, which is why I got this question wrong.

“Useless and irrelevant is quickly eradicated” = economy of expression (oral tradition)

“Proliferation” = verbosity (written tradition)

Economy of expression (oral tradition) is to be preferred over verbosity (written tradition).

E) This doesn’t help the conclusion.

Hey! I'm interested. I haven't taking any PTs yet as I'm redoing the fundamentals. How would you like to do this?

#help. Can someone explain where the false belief idea came from in the stimulus? It doesn’t seem to make sense to me. Thank you!

I initially chose A (and was very confident about it) because I was so focused on why piano makers won't help curb the killing of elephants. I thought that if the concert pianists could not distinguish between real and synthetic ivory, then they won't know they're actually buying real ivory; therefore, they're not aware and can't really ensure they're getting the synthetic ivory to help the elephants. After finding out that the correct answer was D, I realized my thought process didn't make any sense and I forced answer choice A to be the right answer.

After reviewing my thought process, I finally figured out why A was wrong.

Premise: Piano makers have never been major consumers of ivory.

Conclusion: Development of the synthetic ivory will probably do little to help curb the killing of elephants.

Then I had an AHA! moment and thought... well if piano makers aren't the major consumers of ivory then who is? - That's where answer choice D comes in and says that the most common use is ornamental carvings.

I created a study group in Slack. Use this link to join us.

https://join.slack.com/t/resilient7sagers/shared_invite/zt-fdj238lg-zGeE_RvQSefx9acXOOi7Zg

Hi - Argument Part questions are similar to Method of Reasoning except it targets a specific clause in the stimulus. The important thing to do is be able to analyze the argument by first finding the argument parts - premise(s) and conclusion. Sometimes the "conclusion" you find might be a sub-conclusion, etc. Make sure you can distinguish between context (information that author is simply reporting to you; most of the time the author goes against this) and argument (what the author wants you to believe and why).

Hi Nicole - would love to get some advice from you! How long have you been studying?

Hi everyone! I think we can all help each other out. Just an idea - will it be best if we create an online group (like on Facebook) so that we can all connect easily? I'm not sure what other websites/resources there are that allow creating groups. Open to any ideas. Have a great day!

I’m interested! I’m looking at the same timeline.

@ hi! I’m thinking of studying for a year unless I get to my target score sooner. What’s your email?

@ great! What’s your email?

Hi I’m Amy - we could talk. I don’t want to put my number here for everyone, so feel free to message me.

Hi, also just started. Would love to study with you both.

Hi @! I sent you a study buddy request and my email. I'm in Oahu.

Hi Richard N.,

Thank you for your response. I completely forgot about the number of times I can take it.

I took the December 2017, July 2019, and November 2019 exams.

Per the LSAC rules:

Starting with the September 2019 test administration, test takers will be permitted to take the LSAT:

Three times in a single testing year (the testing year goes from June 1 to May 31).

Five times within the current and five past testing years (the period in which LSAC reports scores to law schools).

A total of seven times over a lifetime.

This policy is forward-looking, not retroactive. Tests taken prior to September 2019 will not count against these numerical limits.

So this means that I only have two chances - I'd really like to use only one. I want my next LSAT to be the LAST.

Thank you for your advice! :)

Congratulations! Stories like this give me so much hope. I’m currently on the lower scoring side and questioning whether or not I’ll make it to law school. I was waitlisted the last application cycle with a 145, but decided to draw my applications due to financial reasons.

Thank you so much for sharing!

Hello - I'd also like to add that I have LSAT books I want to get rid of. They're only partially used so there are full practice tests left untouched. Please message me if you'd like those books.