Not getting tricked into choosing the wrong answer is itself a skill, and a damn good one.

But if there are NOT a significant amount of cases, then the author's argument is severely weakened, so it's fair to assume they believe that a significant amount of cases of this type exist.

Plus, the other ACs are horribly wrong, especially D.

3yrs late, but it seems that "impermeable" is in regards to whether or not water can leak through it, not whether or not a drill can get through it. I would assume an industrial mining drill can get through any sort of rock.

Pretty reasonable to assume that if you heavily invest in something then you are using it...

I got lost in the sauce on this one thinking there was an issue with the language jumping between Victorian apartments and "large" Victorian apartments. I think this could have been an issue had the total set of Victorian apartments been the larger group. In that case, none of the ACs would have been correct or valid. #feedback

Additionally, the language is soft on this topic, saying that countries "may" or "could" but not necessarily that it's a given.

Any question on the LSAT that indicates a belief should immediately set off alarm bells.

Easier if you change the context.

LeBron claims he'll score 40,000pts and become the NBA's all time leading scorer. If we find out whether his claim is true, we'll know if it's possible to score 40,000+ pts in a career.

Assumption being that only LeBron is capable of this, so if not him, then ain't nobody doin it.

Which passage did you identify more with?

It makes sense that this LR section ends with OJ, because the section was murder.

Super easy when you use different context.

Example: Warmongering aliens invaded earth, but no single alien is able to wipe out humanity, so aliens must not be responsible for the extinction humanity.

SoCal fails to take into account that Saaamuel was saying that of the passages he has read, this was one of the most boring and terrible, and not that it's objectively one of the most boring and terrible that anyone has read.

imagine how racist this comment would seem if you replaced "white male" with literally anybody else.

wow cringe

But all LSAT experts are gardeners.

Tip: When the premise seems to be (or actually is) strongly supporting the conclusion, the gap (whether framed as a flaw or NA question) is typically in the space between the original subject and the new subject in the conclusion.

I'm not sure about that. Rather, the sum of the whole and sum of the parts seem to be the same, and the flaw is regarding distribution.

Just because you've decided to pollute from a different area doesn't mean you're changing the aggregate figure.

Me: pays ~$70/monthly for a subscription.

JY: You can figure out for yourself why the rest are wrong.

That's a good catch. The only advice I can give is that even with that issue, it's still a better AC than A and the others.

I'd call this one a plurality and certainty flaw.

This 30 minute explanation should help you answer the question in under 2 minutes.

he was never heard from or seen again

/kept > /sense

The act of riding a motorcycle without a helmet sure seems like an activity to me. Remember, this is also a pseudo SA, and a 160 one at that.

As mentioned in the video, you have to make an assumption to say that A poses a risk to life. Which features? Is it a .001% increase in safety? C, the far better answer, explicitly states a "risk of fatal injury." Why would you choose A, which requires an assumption, over the AC that does not?