nope read it again with an open mind. theres more than one viable interpretation, You're just stuck in your way so you can't ascertain the other way. You didn't even address the point I raised my last comment. anyway time to disable email notifications on this account lol

cancelled scores look like 150s or lower to schools.

Ah, it seems to me now like we actually don't really disagree on anything substantive. So thank you for expounding your thoughts with that comment. I agree with you that when you set it up in the whole paradox scheme the answer becomes apparent. That's basically what I'm getting at with my whole "smartass answer", just using different words. My position is simply that there's nothing in the rules of logical reasoning per se, the sort of thing studied by logicians and constitute psychologists, even given a good dose of "common sense assumptions" about how the world works, that dictates the right answer is C. I definitely agree with you that sufficient knowledge of the LSAT, specifically how "solve the paradox" questions tend to work, does provide a determinant answer.

Nice rebuttal, but you're wrong. Farmers can band together and buy bulk in a group by. It's a common thing there's Facebook groups dedicated to that sort of thing. Trust me, you don't want to be the one clinging to LSAT questions being flawless. It's a dead end.

This question paired with the one in the op sucks in a very typical lsaty way. There's absolutely no change in perspective count on here. "Perspective", after all, is a very robust psychological notion regarding how someone looks at a some domain. Leggett does not shift our perspective, as it's not clear that this is something you can do in a sentence or two. Now, you could say that there is a much thinner sense of "perspective" at play here, where are the correct answer choice is just saying that Leggett is offering a different opinion or something--But then this would be trivial because absolutely every disagreeing interlocutor would be doing this, so the correct answer choice would correctly describe at each and every example of this question stem.

What there is here is reconsidering the issue in light of new information. Newer lsats have shifted to this more accurate verbiage. But the wrong answers are super wrong here, so I guess this one is not a totally broken question.

This question was so bizarrely easy that the right answer felt like a trap answer. The right answer is almost tautological, so you don't even need to look at the text to choose it. Yes, something will be toxic if a toxic substance enters it but does not get detoxified. Adventures in pre Y2K LR!

Well, the LSAT measures skills that are useful in life generally. The more dissapointed you are in your initial results, the more oppurtunity you have to quite soon vastly improve skills in yourself that you value.

Numerical progress is not perfectly linear since different concepts are tested at different difficulties on each PT. Go by fluctuations in the mean/quartiles of your last five exams to see if youre making progress. And keep on truckin'.

6 is the most unfairly advantaged I have ever felt reading an LSAT question. It leverages a point that's subtle if you're not familiar with Rawls but canonical to people who have studied him.

It's also a major diss that LSAC expects test-takers, who have never been exposed to Rawls before, are able to find this fundamental objection to Rawls's theory in about a minute or so--and that they can do this in the first (supposedly easiest!) passage of an RC section!

I guess all this is mitigated by the fact that the wrong ACs are pretty bad, and they lead you to the very specific sentence from which the right answer can be inferred.

These videos were helpful for me back in the day

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLz0n_SjOttTcjHsuebLrl0fjab5fdToui

The channel has a couple logic playlists

Everyone who takes a certain number of LSATs should get honorary degrees in the Harlem Renaissance, underground rock formations, and the science of managing businesses with obsolete computer electronics.

Social control isn't one of the two groups of modern theorists. The two groups are the obsoletists from the first paragraph, and the self-servingists from the second paragraph. The social control theorists are subset of the second group. The author, in the second to last paragraph, accuses both groups of whig history and analyzing the past in terms of foreseeing future government involvement.

I sympathize with people who had trouble figuring out what the hell the different groups and what their logical relationships were supposed to be. It takes a little bit of finessing. You need to sort of get into the mind of the question writer and try to figure out what they meant, because these are not necessarily apparent distinctions in the text prima facie.

Easiest RC passage of all time

D, if true, could affect each number equally, so it can't explain the discrepancy between the numbers.

This question gives me flashbacks to the other question about nations, individuals, and moral responsibility that came out like eight years after this one (it was a different format, an "identify the role" question). I bet they were written by the same person back-to-back.

E is a very lazy trap answer because a nutritionist isn't even the sort of professional who would have authority on this matter. Dieticians would be more like it

Before 1991, LSATs occasionally had factual knowledge sections in them, which could include questions about American agriculture.

Here's 2 problems with d:

It doesn't capture the facts that the narrator derived the unjustified idea from a justified idea.

It would not be devastating for the narrator to actually be forced to consider the idea. They could rebut, "so what if there were one or two characteristics that made that species somewhat less viable. We don't have to assume that these characteristics were anything more than meager, and thus a factor that would defeat the power of the ability to cope with a wide variety of environments to cause survival."

12 is kinda hilarious because the brain thing is reffering to totally different mechanisms. It's like Aquaman and Archimedes agreeing that water is interesting.

The second stim isn't neurological research. It's evolutionary biology or psychology, or anthropology. If you Ctrl+f "neuro", the only mention in the second stim is in a brief, quasi-philosophical aside.

22 was the only question on this exam I didn't get until I reviewed after flagging. They obviously try to trick you into confabulating that the question stem is about internet copyright law, when it's just about copyright law. Hence so many people wanted to pick A or B--but the fact that neither a or B were superior made me check the answers I quickly dismissed and have a "DUR" moment.

But the extremely low correctness rate on 15 surprises me tbh. The ideas in the most commonly chosen wrong answers are localized to the very end of last paragraph, and they both miss a bunch of the discussion.

-0 times 4. First flawless! Great place to end my testprep before the August exam tomorrow. Good luck to all future test takers, and thanks so much to JY, Kevin, and everyone who left insightful comments. If there's one piece of advice I can humbly leave for posterity it's the following: f*ck the LSAT! Don't revere this monstrosity: master it like you'd tame a nasty beast.

This is a great example of what I call a smartass question, or a question that's more like a riddle or a joke than a logic problem, because the question-writer probably first came up with some clever, funny conceit and shoehorned it into a logic problem. The answer is always going to be something that completes a joke or a cleverness. For these questions, there may look to be no answer that is clearly the best; they may all have flaws, or fail to address the question stem perfectly. What you have to do is turn off your logical brain for a second and find a joke/gimmick of the problem. These problems are nearly pure intuition.

Here, the joke, I think, is pretty obvious. The computer guy is saying that the most important problem for hospitals and universities is cyber problems. But this is clearly ridiculous. Far more plausible candidates for most severe problems for these institutions are, I don't know, DISEASE maybe? Rising cancer rates?? The upcoming demographic cliff and skyrocketing tuition? Haha, what a dummy this tech guy is!

B is the only answer that captures that conceit, even if it doesn't do so precisely (if it did so precisely, that would be giving away the joke!). It might even make an assumption or two that we would find illicit in other circumstances. Some of the other ACs may be salvageable under strenuous interpretation, but these answers wouldn't be funny or clever; they wouldn't inspire a question-writer in the bathtub to rush out and get their notebook and pen.

You cannot master the LSAT until you master the smartass question.

This is the sort of question that's easy with practice but can be hard when you're new. It comes down to appreciating the distinction between properly drawn and necessary assumption/MBT--and remembering to read the damn question stem!

I think you were right to get thrown off. There are ambiguities in the stim and ACs about when the persons mentioned were of certain ages. This is precisely the sort of ambiguity LSAT is most susceptible to: ambiguous quantification. It seems to be something they don't even check for. For example, A is ambiguous between "most people who are presently 17 or older never bought a game" and "the cohort of persons 17 and older has never comprised mostly people who have bought games". The mistake here has to do with a failure to appreciate what philosophers call a de re/de dicto distinction ( https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prop-attitude-reports/dere.html ). All this was swimming in my head while I answered the question, but I was still able to solve the question quickly.

Maybe you took the test already--but for test takers, generally, I don't have any advice but taking lots of PTs, which will help you get a groove in your brain dedicated to deciphering how LSAT question-writers tend to convey or interpret things. The correct answer will feel right not just because of your comprehension/reasoning abilities but because it matches patterns of past right answers you've seen.