I chose E because I thought that billed was synonymous with fined. Ugh.

The LSAT has taught me that I don't know simple math concepts.

The passage discusses two religious texts that have different data to prove the same phenomenon- the creation of the universe. So while they are both religious texts, each text relies on different sources or "data." Different types of historical data could very well be two religious texts that rely on different accounts of the same things. Another example of a different type of historical data could be a biography from the point of view of a slave in the U.S. in the 1800s versus a biography from the point of view of a slave owner in the 1800s. While both are the same "type" in that they are biographies, they are based on different account of the same phenomenon and come to different conclusion about slavery.

Does your PS touch on any of things things? If so, then choose some of the other things that it doesn't touch on. Does one of these themes have a larger impact in your life/worldview? Also, the first 4 bullet points can go under a general umbrella diversity statement about being in a lower socioeconomic class and how that impacted your life.

Yes, it does. However, offering an explanation of how a bing bang could result from a cold/empty initial condition does not explain why the initial condition is cold/empty in the first place. The stimulus is asking us to find support for why the universe started as cold/empty. So the third paragraph provides support for why the universe would start as cold/empty rather than hot and dense. The third paragraph explains that a low entropy initial condition (hot and dense) is unlikely. This gives support for why a cold/empty initial condition (which is high entropy) would be more likely.

If you change AC C to "Many people who criticize etiquette are mistaken about its lack of beneficial effects for society" then it makes way more sense. I misinterpreted the AC to be saying that the people were mistaken in thinking that etiquette does have beneficial effects.

I don't think JY is wrong. I think that what you may be getting at is that the phrase "given bee species" is very broad. We could plug any type of bee into that sentence like an African Killer Bee, but we only know about honeybees and bumblebees, so the stimulus does not support answer E. I think JY is saying that even if we plugged in honeybees or bumblebees into the "given bee species" phrase, we still can't determine the truth of the statement that the greater the likelihood of each species visiting more than one crop, the more efficient each species would be.

Lines 34-39 in passage B are basically saying that perhaps there should be a third type of opera in which other features are more important than the music. However, we tried this in the past and people didn't like it, so music needs to be more at the forefront of an opera to get people to like it. The question is what would the author of passage A think about this? The author would agree that the "quality" of the music is the most important aspect of an opera. Reference lines 18-22 in which passage A argues that the aesthetic value of an opera is dependent upon the "emotional range" of the music. Emotional range is a quality of music.

The way in which the stimulus is written threw me off. I was thinking that we needed to assume that if a reaction to a signal is interpreted as aggressive, then that signal must be aggressive. However, that is not the case. Just because we can interpret any reaction to a signal as aggressive, does not actually mean that the response is aggressive.

So I think the point is that we can only have ONE general assembly. Let's say the standards committee has a quorum and then the general assembly starts at 6 PM and it only lasts an hour. Now, the awards committee can't have a quorum because then the general assembly would need to start at 7 PM which is a contradiction because the general assembly already started at 6 PM. The general assembly can only start at 6 PM or 7 PM, but not both.

If Ben teaches math class, the school assembly will end at 3 PM.

If Sue teaches science class, then school assembly will end at 4 PM.

Why can't it be that Ben teaches math and Sue teaches science in the same day? Because the school assembly can only end at one time. It can't end at both 3 PM and 4 PM. One school assembly can't end twice.

I think it is correct that we would need to make that assumption. The question stem is asking what "most contributes to a resolution," so it not necessary for us to pick an answer choice that must be 100% foolproof, but rather one that can conceivably resolve the discrepancy.

Argument: The party’s proposal to stimulate the economy by refunding $600 million to taxpayers is a dumbass idea. Why? Because our budget needs to be in balance so either we would need to institute new taxes to make up the $600 million or we would need to lay off a bunch of workers to make up the $600 million. A $600 million refund is either going to benefit taxpayers or workers, so to conclude is no possible way to have a net increase in spending to stimulate the economy.

Weaken: We are trying to find an answer choice that shows that there is some way possible to refund the taxpayers $600 million without having to raise taxes and without having to fire workers. Basically we are looking for an answer choice that proves that we can BOTH refund taxpayers $600 million and get $600 million from somewhere else.

AC E does exactly what I stated above. We are using workers more effectively so we are going to save $600 million. Since we are saving this money, we can refund the taxpayers $600 million resulting overall in a net increase in spending.

AC D says that we are not going to refund the taxpayers and instead we are going use $600 million and put them in construction projects. There are two main problems with this. 1) By saying that we are not going to refund the taxpayers, we are not addressing the conclusion in the stimulus. We have to weaken the stimulus which means we need to show why it is not true that there can’t be a net increase in spending while refunding the taxpayers. 2) If you chose this answer choice (like I did), you probably made the assumption that this $600 million in construction projects is going to result in at least a return of $600 million. We can’t make that assumption because maybe the construction projects are not profitable and we just spent $600 million dollars and have no way of getting that money back to balance the province’s budget.

Hi I had this exact same thought. I think we can conclude that a tree is a plant. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that we can conclude that all plants produce oxygen via photosynthesis. The question doesn't specify ALL plants, just "plants", so I guess we can assume that this is correct because we know at least some plants produce oxygen via photosynthesis.

I don't understand why negating A wrecks the argument. Negated, A says that all of the crows that shrieked/dive bombed were among the crows that had been trapped. I do not understand why this cannot be true in the context of the argument. Granted, if this were true, the argument still wouldn't do a good job of supporting the premise that crows can pass on their concerns to other crows. However, the argument isn't completely ruined just because there is weak support for that premise.

Bob is faster than Anne. Therefore, Bob is fast.

This is a relative v. absolute flaw because we don't actually know if Bob is fast. All we know is that Bob is faster than Anne. Anne might be the slowest person alive and Bob might only be marginally faster than Anne.

So in this question the L river is ranked #1 in pollution compared to the other 15 rivers. Then it is ranked #3 so the argument concludes that it must be that the river is now cleaner than it was.

The argument is stating that L river is less polluted (absolute decrease) compared to the other rivers due to its better ranking compared to the other rivers (relative decrease). The problem is that L river might actually not have decreased its pollution at all, it's just that the better ranking is due to the other rivers becoming much more polluted. We don't actually know if L river is less polluted now because we are comparing it to other rivers whose baseline of pollution (absolute value) we know nothing about. All we know is the position of L river in a ranking (relative value) compared to the other rivers.

Hi, please remember that a company wants what is best for them, not necessarily you, so be cautious with what you tell them. If they ask where you want to be in five years, be honest and say that you are interested in pursuing law, but make sure you explain how that relates to the position that you are trying to get now. Do not offer a definite timeline of when you expect to go to law school.

It does address the argument's premise that they had to eat something on the journey to and from the islands. AC A says that once on the islands, they ate land animals. For example, while sailing from Norway to the islands they didn't eat any sea creatures, but then they got to the islands and ate the land animals on the islands. Then from the islands back to Norway they didn't eat any sea creatures. They didn't need to eat any sea creatures to and from the islands because they ate land animals on their journey instead.

For AC A, the problem is that there is mismanagement of the money. The problem is not that there isn't an adequate amount of money. It may be possible to fire some executives and put more competent people in the management of the money. If they did that, then the amount of money may be what they need.

For AC B, the salary of the scientists increased higher than inflation, but we know nothing about how much that actually is. We don't know the inflation rate. We also don't know how much of the scientists' salaries make up the overall budget. It may be that the scientists' salaries are a very small part of the overall budget even with an increase over the inflation rate, thus this does adequately explain why tripling the budget in inadequate.

AC E is the correct answer because it makes is so that there is no paradox at all. If 10 years ago we only had $1 in funding, then tripling that is obviously still not enough.

It's very hard to see what the counterexample in AC C is referring to. If you think the conclusion is that evolution does not always optimize survival then you are looking for a counterexample to prove that evolution does always optimize survival. However, there is no such example. None of the examples are counter to this conclusion, rather they are consistent in proving various ways in which evolution is not optimal. So now you have to rethink the conclusion to say the almost same thing in an opposite way of what the conclusion states, which is that some people think that evolution always optimizes survival, but they are wrong. Then a counterexample to this conclusion would be the examples that are given that show that evolution is not always optimal.

This is some real convoluted thinking to do in one minute.

I didn't like AC B because you have to assume that the steam did not carry heavy isotopes which we know are present in the core. I suppose this is a reasonable assumption (?) since it is a most strongly supported question, but it is way too loose of an LR question. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that since the core has heavy isotopes, the steam would likely carry that downwind.

For question 14, my thought process for choosing B was that adults are more likely to incorrectly say that they aren't making inferences about their own thoughts and therefore are "more likely than children to give inaccurate reports of their thought processes." Thoughts on why this is incorrect?

The main difference I see is that AC E states that the college students "say" that they do community service. We don't really know if what they say is reliable.

Whereas, AC D and the stimulus seem to match more closely and even use the same terminology of "probably" in the conclusion.

Hi you have to pay close attention to word choice in these answers.

Answer E: It is "legally permissible" for a mural to be destroyed by the owner if he/she "tires" of it.

Would Shanna agree with this? We have no idea if Shanna would or would not agree with this because we don't know what Shanna thinks is "legally permissible." All we know is that Shanna would likely find this ethically permissible. Additionally, "tires of it" may not necessarily qualify as finding it inconvenient so we should be skeptical of that language.

Would Jorge agree with this? Again, we have no idea what Jorge thinks about legal permissibility. We cannot assume that because Jorge thinks that historically valuable items should be preserved that this also means that Jorge would disagree with this statement because we don't know his thoughts on the legality of the situation, just the morality.

Answer A: Anyone who owns an unflattering portrait of something is ethically justified in destroying on the basis that it is unflattering.

Would Shanna agree with this? Yes, Shanna would agree because Shanna thinks that as long as you own the portrait AND find it aesthetically distateful, then you can ethically destroy it.

Would Jorge agree with this? No because Jorge says that even though you own it, you are not morally justified in destroying it. So Jorge would not agree that anyone could destroy such a piece of art.

Now, the type of artwork describe in this AC is not all that important because it is the only AC that they would disagree about. Shanna refers to ANY art (so this portrait would qualify) and Jorge refers to unique works of art which this portrait may qualify as.