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

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.

It is not A b.c the question stem has told us air condition has caused power blackouts. Sure there are other variables but we do not care in this question.

It is B b.c the policy only asks the resident to voluntarily shut off AC (and then listen as the word heeded is used, so not D), factories and businesses are not residents.

The correct answer is not E because no bacteria does not mean it is sterilized and sealed, it could be just food naturally does not contain bacteria.

it is D b/c within acceptable method there are only two possibilties: 1. sterilized and sealed 2. at least slowing the growth as pointed out by either or relationship. And we know it is not 1 b.c D said non-sterilized, so it has to be 2. Slow the growth means it can contain bacteria.

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.

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.

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

The answer choice should first make sufficient in the principle true so that the result hire most productive will be triggered, and then point out D is the most productive. and E does just that.

A is wrong for negating sufficient, making the principle useless

B is wrong b.c it does not satisfy the sufficient. It justs say there are a bunch of candidates not working for Arvue, and D is the best. Which does not mean there are no fully qualified candidate.

C and is wrong for the same reason of not satisfying the sufficient

A says if a company (1) refuse to use competitor's check (2) at the cost of not satisfying some potential consumer then it is trying to hurt the competitor.

• and stimulus has enough more than enough facts to meet (1) and (2)

• all we need check for answer is 1) the conclusion is what we want (sufficient and necessity cannot switch places) 2) the premise can be met by our stimulus

This is an amazing story and congrats !!!

it is not (C) b.c legel permissibility is about guility or not guility, unrelated to the punshiment severity that this problem is referring to.

it is not (A) b.c again the theorist is addressing how should we set a punishment, harsh or not. This is unrelated to whether this law should be in the legal system or not.

B is apparently the only one talks about the level of punishment, which makes it the most likely choice.

There are two hypothesis for bee’s good vision: 1) flowers developed to suit bee 2) bee developed to suit flowers. And the argument is saying 1) is more likely than 2).

A is correct because it rejects the 2) argument that insects like bee do not develop color vision that suit flowers.

It is not C b/c more species of flowers do not mean greater variance of flowers

Correct answer must address 2) is less favour answer than 1)

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