Could be true except

there are two rules: if prisoner, must leave to find. and cannot leave unless substitude arrives.

B could be true b.c even though S leaves early, she could be chasing the prisoner and not violate. Even though C does not leave, she may forget to chase prisoner and violate the rule.

D MUST BE FALSE b.c if prisoner and neither S nor C chase, they will violate the rule.

E could be true b.c even C chase the prisoner, C could violate the substitute rule

Please tell me I am not the only one that does not see second question is asking what is the purpose of second paragraph. I thought it is about whole passage and picked B within like 15 seconds

Triple circles can be exchanged the wording. Cats can be separated as large, white, and fluffy. Some fluffy cat are large and white is EQUAL TO some large cat are white and fluffy, different ways of pointing out the exact same intersection of three circles

There are two conditions need to be met: risk your live, save ship in peril. Hunter claims he met both, so he can get the cargo. Archaeologist rejects by saying you cannot call a stabilized ship as a ship in peril. C is wrong b.c archae does not say anything about whether hunter is risking own life or not, but he made clear distinction b.w ship in peril vs shipwreck

Yes, this answer would also be correct if this question is MBT question, in which all answers correct for MBT will be correct for MSS (if an answer must be true, then it is definitely most strongly supported by the stimulus)

The main conclusion is the first sentence. Dictionary editors is just a way (a professional way) of monitoring words expressing new ideas. We do not need to know how dictionary editors is monitoring the word or which types of word does editors care

The correct conclusion is the first sentence: one sure way you can tell how quickly a new idea is talking hold among public is to monitor how fast the words expressing that particular idea are passing into common knowledge. and second sentence is just saying, dictionary editors is a professional way of monitor.

Therefore, for first conclusion to be true, words expressing that idea, when passing into common knowledge, can not be distorted severely, otherwise it is impossible to minitor how fast the word expressing THAT PARTICULAR IDEA are passing.

A, B, C can be eliminated quickly for its referencing to dictionary editors. E is adding assumption between the premise (how quickly a new idea is talking hold among public) and adding E will not help us to understand the conclusion

This argument is using analogy as premise, mainly the analogy between U.S. and Korean. But the conclusion is about the student in U.S.. The main gap, or the main assumption author has is that if U.S. and longer television data and worse geometry data and Korean has shorter television and better geometry data, then U.S. student in order to increase math ability you need to shorten tv time. It is very dangerous to conclude conditional relationship from observation data. And E fill in the main gap by saying it is not other aspect of U.S. and cause the worse math ability. If you negate E, than author's recommend policy (less tv time) would be useless

preach

phrase "certain trait like herding are lost" is pointing out we need a new standard of classifying dogs (the conclusion). It is sufficient for us to make the conclusion for not necessary, which means E is wrong. This is a intermediate conclusion supported by the selective breeding of breeder, and goes on to support our main conclusion

This is an amazing story and congrats !!!

B clearly contradict this, and also not inconsistent with biologist claim.

The first thing to realize is that there are two requirements the correct answer must satisfy. The second requirement might be easier to test than the first, so let’s start there. The correct

choice must contradict (that’s what it means to be “not consistent with") the politicians claim. Paraphrased, here's what the politician says: if deforestation is stopped, koala will not extinct. make sure you understand that this is what the politician is saying; the key is the phrase “all that is needed,” which denotes sufficiency: “stop deforestation, and the koala is saved,” is in essence the politician’s claim.

Thank you so much! I am taking the LSAT at June for the first time. Hope this is also the last time

yes you are right the arrow is both way. This is precisely why JY cross out only if because half of the relationship (the arrow pointing necessary to sufficient) is unnecessary for us to bridge this pseudo assumption question. Arrow pointing both ways mean arrow pointing left + arrow pointing right and under this, whether you use both, left, right, are all correct

I misunderstood the logic and thought the correct answer must have something than shows the "than" relationship and select D

It is up to a point where I do not understand the reasoning, but from looking for the pattern of statement I got all of the questions correct so far.

Got all of them right, thank you 7sage !

A is wrong -> character defect is not the same thing as morally responsible (this word is unrelated to the stimulus)

B is wrong -> you correcly eliminate it

C is wrong -> negation test. If you are someone without character defect, you would knowingly perform immoral act to harm others. This is not hurting our argument

E is wrong -> None is negate necessary. this means if you harm yourself, you do not lack character defect (which means you have character defect)

The question sets up a logic character defect (-> harm others) -> harm yourself, and claiming those are unaware the last part, which is D is pointing out.

E is talking about what is important for art students to learn. and the stimulus is about which way (color or paint) is better for teacher to teach art student about color. Two different perspective so the subset of E is different from what we are talking in the stimulus.

This is a descriptive stimulus. All the sentences beside the first one (which is the conclusion and goal) are discussing facts that you do not need to add other details upon to prove fact to be true.

I misunderstood what D is trying to say. D is trying to show it is important for student to see the SAME color under different contexts. Because if this is not important, I assume student could just stare at the paint in the art classroom forever. But this is, as in color paper is more prefer.

I change the answer choice from D to A at the very last moment before submitting. And the result greatly improve my mental health.

I found the PSA and SA questions to be the hardest question types in LR

conclusion = love is not a feeling

logic: (1) love = feeling (2) feeling not within one's control (3) promise about this kind of feeling make no sense

The gap between logic and conclusion is that you have to tie what does not making sense is bad thing, which D does.

Beware interpreting promise and making promise. The conclusion describes one should not interpret love as feeling, therefore making this promise seems logical. However, B is stating if the logic flows, one should not make the promise, which is not the stimulus is arguing.

I learned the mistake from the last you try question.

I just noticed A is the only one that satisfy the if and only if sufficient condition, and this is the only possible way of kicking Penn out while keeping Frank in.

I am so glad I understand this logic and it just takes me seconds to rule out all other choices