I hate the size of the text. I already struggle reading from the screen, and now I can barely see. When I full-screen the test-taker, it looks like shit too 😭

wow

@jmont9407 I know this was probably a rhetorical question, but I think I might be able to help out! Assumption questions are super difficult because our minds automatically fill in the "gaps" in the author's reasoning. We (or at least I) often do not realize that the author is even making an assumption because we instantly supply the missing information so that the author's claims make sense. So what really sucks is that assumption questions (and I guess every LSAT question in general lol) require a systematic "break down" of every argument that sometimes feels really unnecessary because it goes totally against how we are used to reading an argument.

What has helped me recently is reminding myself that EVERY Lsat stimulus/argument makes an assumption. Now we just need to identify what that assumption is. Your prediction doesn't need to be perfect (and its probably better that its not), it just needs to make an attempt at stopping yourself from automatically supllying the missing logic

Say we are given the following argument (I've been watching/reading too much Twilight):

Premise: Edward smells Bella's scent from across the biology classroom and realizes it is entirely irresistible to him.

Conclusion: Therefore, Edward will refuse to sit next to Bella.

As a twilight fan (please don't judge me), this makes sense. I'm assuming Edward cares about Bella, I'm assuming that he cares about not traumatizing his classmates (by choosing not to suck her blood right there), and that he doesn't have any other way of avoiding the scent of her blood. I even assume that the fact that he is unable to resist it would would cause him to suck her blood in the first place. But if I negated these, my conclusion might suck. If Edward didn't give a shit about Bella, there would be no reason for him to refuse to sit next to her.

Its really a matter of forcing yourself to really break everything down, which can be mentally draining at times. But you got this!!!! I hope this makes sense/was helpful!

@Hashibiro ME TOO

@gonewiththewind We can also say that C is incorrect because we cannot guarantee the outcome that some legal voters are not professors (based on the information provided). We can visualize it by imagining a group of, say, 5 brilliant people. Of those 5, say 2 are legal voters. Of the 2 brilliant people that are also legal voters, say that 1 of them is a professor. Though it is a less likely outcome than having no overlap, it is still a possible scenario.

@chelseaxingqx959 I see what you mean, but the author is creating a "causal chain". She says: "If real reason revealed--->societal demand for government control increases--->economic disaster". I think that this is one of those instances where we have to assume it is plausible to treat "the demand for government control" and "actual government control" as similar enough to allow the conclusion to follow. Sometimes the "ideal answer" is just slightly better than the other answer choices.

I know you asked this a while ago and probably have it down now, but I think it has more to do with the size of the sets.

If some A are B, then at least one A is B. Further, if some B are C, then at least one B is C.

I represented it like this

A

A

A B

B

B C

C

C

In this specific case, A and C do not even touch. That is not to say it is impossible, but we cannot guarantee it.

OMFG. I read this so wrong. I thought the first sentence said that the city has been a prime example of fiscal RESPONSIBILITY. What is worse, I didn't even catch my mistake on blind review. I literally could not understand the argument because I thought they said that Metro City's bridge program is responsible!!!!

That is so horrible LOL