I was debating between Workers Who Consider Stress ←s→ Veteran Employees and Workers Who Consider Stress → Veteran Employees because of "a few"

Does anybody know if it were just "few" instead of "a few" whether it would be a ←s→ relationship?

#help (Added by Admin)

Q4: What was so confusing about this question is that the line support is not even in the same paragraph as where the test case is mentioned. I re-read the question stem and think LSAC covered their asses by explicitly mentioning PASSAGE. A bit sneaky, and why a ton of people probably fell into the AC E subjective rabbit hole.

I feel like if you didn't know what "amorphous" meant, you are at a pretty big disadvantage for this passage.

6/ ANALOGY

B/ Yes, this is it as the cuts don't seem to be necessary, and are a means of squeezing more moolah

C/ This is close, but because of the claim of "declining revenues projected"this could translate to mean that these cuts are indeed necessary

27 B/ Is the right way to think about this is in the passage it says:

Understand Function AND Trust Technique --> Gladly Consent

But, AC B is saying that Affected by Rule --> Understand Motivation

Which does not track what the passage is saying since the understanding is sufficient in the passage, but necessary int his answer choice? #help

I had a bit of a superficial reading of the passage and didn't catch that detail about lightning till the end. It's sometimes so frustrating to determine which details matter and which don't....

OMG. I chose D, then B in the BR, and didn't realize that both B and D don't really matter.

B/ Number of Visitors Increase --> Amount Of Spend Will Increase

This is irrelevant because well, we care only about tax revenues, and it doesn't matter in what matter those tax revenues get acquired.

D/ Similar to B where we know that the TOTAL number of visitors will increase as per stimulus. As such, it's irrelevant whether the old visitors come / don't come.

This passage and questions felt like hell and back.

I had to read this a couple of times, to finally understand the bunch of baloney.

ID MBT

Some environmentalists argue that there is no need to be careful with the environment in that there aren't any economic benefits to be realized in the future from them that don't exist now.

Other environmentalists claim that nature has intrinsic value that can't be assessed even if it makes economic sense right now.

Pre-Phrase: These are two opinions from two camps

A/ Contradicts what is implied by the second group of environmentalists

B/ This seems to be right only if intrinsic value does not track to economic grounds. Not sure since "intrinsic value" does actually equate to economic value in some contexts (i.e. the intrinsic value of an asset is used synonymously with net asset value for a bank, for example. This is quite germane to "economic"). it would be reasonable to infer that in this instance, however, it isn't economic in nature since the juxtaposition that the second group of environments is claiming wouldn't make sense (you can't juxtapose economic v. economic, so it would have to be non-economic v. economic).

C/ Most is too strong when we only have "some" and "many" in the stimulus.

D/ Only is too strong, there could be other reasons behind this

E/ What? A bunch of gibberish

This was quite a difficult question IMHO thanks to the complexity of the issue.

ID: MBT

Government claims that nuclear plants are safe and public concern is unfounded

Government wants to limit liability of nuclear power plants in order to prevent the industry from going bankrupt.

BUT

Unlimited Liability Is Problematic / Is A Threat --> Injuries Can Be Claimed --> Nuclear Accident Occurs

Pre-Phrase: The two positions don't really make sense. If unlimited liability poses a threat only if there are nuclear accidents, and the government claims that the concern for nuclear plants is unfounded and decides to limit the unlimited liability of these plants, these positions don't really align.

A/ I almost picked this. We have no idea whether it is certainly false. It could be very well true, but there is another reason that is unstated which is causing the government is deciding to limit the unlimited liability

B/Yes, matches pre-phrase

C/ Almost picked this. I personally think the language is just too strong. Misrepresentation seems like too strong of charge. More importantly, it could very well be true that the government is not lying about its reasons, but is lying about the safety of the nuclear plants.

I feel like common sense / intuition is a better compass for this question than all the logic.

17 E: "in situ preservation"

Isn't this heavily implied in Passage A? Specifically, the act of pulling the stuff out from the bottom of the ocean means you don't want to leave it "in situ"?

#help (added by Admin)

ID NA

I got hung up with "recently" but couldn't figure out which AC matched. Looking at it again, it's evident that AC B is the one.

B/ If not all methane is exposed to sunlight, then it could be indeed possible, that the methane was not recent in nature.

D/ No, if they detected the methane that had been exposed, it would have been fallen apart already into its constituent elements

ID MSS

2021 # of Books Sold: 500 Total

- 400: ~Beginners

- 100: Beginners

"Most ~beginners bought books than beginners"

2020 # of Books Sold: 400 Total

- 100: ~Beginners

- 300: Beginners

"Most beginners bought books than ~beginners"

A/ This is provable based on the above example

B/ No evidence

C/ No evidence

D/ Can't support. It just says that "More cookbooks than ever was purchased by professional cooks"

E/ No evidence that this was a best-seller last year

ID AP

Conclusion: F's claim that BO belonged to BR is UNLIKELY to be correct.

- There is evidence that BO belonged to mainstream church

- There is no evidence that he was a member of BR

A/ Too Strong - "guarantee the falsity" The conclusion tries to qualify by saying UNLIKELY.

B/ I chose this, but this is obviously wrong. The fact that there was no evidence that he was a member of BR does NOT mean he almost certainly was a member of the mainstream church.

This isn't a one or the other choice, which I wrongly, thought it was.

C/Descriptively Inca - Nothing about credibility

D/ Yes, it throws doubt on F's "hypothesis"

I eliminated this AC because I didn't think this was a hypothesis, and merely a claim. But, it actually explicitly states that it was a "hypothesis" in the stimulus

E/ There is no evidence that we cannot explain this.

ID MSS

When rain dissolves fluoride minerals in soil, fluoride enters in groundwater

When rainfall, concentrations of fluoride, and other variables are held CONSTANT, there are HIGHER levels of fluoride in places where there are HIGHER levels of sodium.

D/ Yes, this is likely true. The sodium in the groundwater induces an accelerated 'melting' of fluoride

E/ Descriptively Inaccurate - It cites specifically that fluoride-bearing minerals are held CONSTANT (i.e. "concentrations of fluoride-bearing minerals...constant"). We're ONLY toggling up and down the salt levels, NOT the fluoride-bearing minerals. Finally, it mentions sodium in SOIL whereas we are only told of sodium in groundwater.

This question was quite hard for me (for some reason).

ID WEAKENS

Basically, we have a sample of (only) TEN people who are given coffee and coffee with chocolate.

Those who were fed chocolate with coffee could not detect differences amongst the coffee sample.

The argument goes on to erroneously conclude that chocolate had some sort of effect on people's taste perception of coffee.

Pre-Phrase: To weaken this, we need something that shows that look, maybe the people who were tasting the coffee had shitty taste buds to begin with, and it WASN'T coffee that was inhibiting their ability to taste (or lack thereof).

A/ STRENGTHENS - Random assignment of sample is good

B/ STRENGTHENS - Increases rigour of study results

C/ NO IMPACT - Doesn't matter in which form chocolate is consumed.

D/ Weakens - This shows that it may have been the taste buds of the sample of five that were causing this

E/ I chose this. In retrospect, this is wrong because we've already established the fact that these folks are able to discriminate coffee. Now, we're just quibbling over the DEGREE of discrimination, which doesn't do much to the argument.

Holy shit. This passage was brutal to do in 8 minutes.

JY makes it look so easy...

Weirdly enough, I didn't really understand what the passage was getting at, but I still managed to get 7/8 based on "feeling"

Gotta give LSAC props for making something as mundane as "fairy tales" complicated AF

Did anybody else find Q6 was bait-y with the innovations part, and getting trapped b/w the ACs that discussed "innovations"?

E/ Baits you in making the assumption that in order to exercise influence, you must have read the book. But, in fact, you may have watched a rendition of the book in a movie, for example, which would presumably have exercised influenced you.

UGHHHHH...

Gamma Ray Bursts are classified based on their relative duration "short" or "long"

But, there is an unusual GRB sighted

It's duration was long, but it's other characteristics were short

Conclusion: Clearly, the "long" / "short" labels have outlasted its usefulness

ID STRENGTHEN

Based on this one-off case, how can we ascertain that the "long" and "short" labels have outlasted its usefulness?

There has to be other things in play. Maybe the classification isn't exclusively based on the wavelength?

If this question were a SA, then it would be if assumed...is most VALID, not most STRONGLY SUPPORTED

I was so confused with B vs. E in Q19, but I think the "foundation" (line 1) is key to tracking to "basis" in AC E.

I still feel like the paragraph is quite detailed.

Arghhh...I hate this passage so much.

5/ Inference - Author PoV

C - The author claims in the passage, that the Native Americans actually had MORE of an impact than historians give credit to. This doesn't connote to EU settlers having little impact on North American / South American ecosystems.

D - WIDESPREAD felt too strong, but I guess it tracks to "conditions favourable" in lines 35 - 36