This is the greatest LSAT question of all time.

#feedback

C seems to be getting at the fact that the claim is a major premise / subconclusion.... which from my vantage point it seems to be. it is deriving support from the two statements before it but is not the main conclusion, its used to support the main conclusion..... thats exactly what a major premise is, exactly what the claim is doing, and exactly what C is outlining.... how is it wrong?

moreover the question stem is which one MOST accurately describes, so its possible that two are accurate. I'm not making the claim that D isn't an accurate description, it says that the claim is a premise which is true. D however MORE accurately describes the claim by going into depth about what kind of premise it is.

in your explanation, you read half of the answer... and then provided no explanation at all which (respectfully) was about as unhelpful as possible.

Does anyone have a more serious explanation?

#feedback

I didnt choose D (only because it was a Q6 and they typically dont put trap answers there) but you cant just say "no" to D. It also seems to fit the mold. The company cannot identify all of the parties affected (creates an unfair situation) so they should (obliged to) deny all rebates (rectification of the unfair situation)... rectify means to make right or equal, it doesn't necessarily have to benefit the costumers. the only reason why C is maybe slightly better than D is because it explicitly mentions an obligation, it its a common sense assumption that if you have an obligation to do something then you should do it...

C totally violates the claim that it "MUST ENSURE that the citizens have majority ownership" because they cannot determine it. it doesn't matter if the citizens actually are majority owners or not because the government cannot determine it.

This wasn't a difficult question for yall??? its one of two questions I missed... the curve is 146??? what am I not seeing here lmao

Respectfully to the LSAT, Q19... How does D map on???? where in the passage does it even imply that the police or military (analogous to Roman officials and such) are immune to "blackmail" punishments?? it says that the only way that blackmail was enforced was if the remarks would ruin the character, and then sort of implies that officials are more susceptible to this / the burden of proof may be lower for them. NOWHERE does it even remotely imply that people of high status in Roman society could freely blackmail people with no consequences. Nowhere does it even remotely imply for any reason that officials are immune to committing blackmail. There isn't a logical connection here. This looks like an Identify the Flaw questions... you absolutely CANNOT assume that because the officials are being slandered the most (presumably, even this isn't entirely supported) that they then become the only group that is allowed to do it w/o repercussions????? A toddler could see how that is logically incoherent. I'll put it a diffrent way. Children get accused of stealing candy from the store more than any other group, so stealing is illegal for everyone but children.... what the hell?!?!? Questions like this make it clear why on the actual LSAT, they only tell you ur score.. There would be an absolute uproar if this idiotic way of thinking was apparent on the test..... I am beyond pissed.

no disrespect to anyone but I don't see how this question is so highly missed. its a weakening question, what would weaken the passage most is that the epistemologists may not exist right?

I also got this wrong. Stared at it a long time... maybe because "recouping cost" doesn't have to be aa financial cost? Maybe the mental cost of feeling stolen from or something like that. The only other semi-logical choice, (C)is tricky because we don't really know how MOST comedians feel.

Also, for the last question, The passage says that her later work was not always readily apparent and the work was visually austere.

#feedback #help

For question 10, how are we supposed to know that MUCH of her later work is as described in the answer choice? We get examples of this in the text but we don't know if this is a massive minority of her work. This is the same reason why B is wrong. We get an example of her personally constructing something, but it's not fair to assume that that is the case for the majority of her work. Clearly I'm missing something.... could someone better explain this for me?

J a little more explanation on why I was able to get Q5 right (when I definitely would have missed this before)

PassageA specifically mentions body builders in one line, and then in another line describes the subject in the sentence as "your muscles". You can logically conclude that PassageA is for directed at Bodybuilders, PassageBis incredibly ambiguous and honestly could have been any of the choices, but passageA eliminates all of them but D

#feedback Hey JY, your explanation for question D is incorrect. D is 100% the wrong answer, but this is the case solely because it says all people instead of recent graduates. VP pointing to $ is a valid argument form. For example. All law students have taken the LSAT (LS-->LSAT), All law student have graduated undergrad(LS-->GUG) ; it has now become a valid (and necessary) argument that all law students have taken the LSAT AND graduated undergrad (LS -->LSAT & GUG). If the question was how you've interpreted it (all people just means recent grads) then this question would be unanswerable because there would be two right answers.

the flow of the sentence. the subject of the sentence is poetry. but if you confused the necessary and sufficient conditions and negated the necessary you would still get the right information logically

/translated well --> poetry (correct)

poetry--> /translated well (incorrect interpretation of what the sentence is saying but still logically correct)

#help #feedback

I chose E because it's the BETTER answer choice, but (for C) is it not safe to assume that if something is uncontrollable, then someone can not be held responsible?? This idea that "if something is out of your control it is unreasonable to be responsible for it" seems to be a consistent theme in society and thus a fair assumption to make

that's all true. Looking back at this I can see how B would still be the right choice even if they meant qualify to be as I interpreted it. Precisely why, you said. It does not fully validate the conclusion.

My friend you stated it yourself. Because of non economic reasons. It doesnt matter if fewer resources mean lower average income, or if it quadruples the average income. It is no longer part of the set of things influenced by the party's supposed economic mismanagement. A key tip I try to use when addressing these questions and I cant decide is which answer requires less assumptions. answer choice A (to be the incorrect choice) would require you to assume that the rise in income is because of non economic factors, which isn't a fair assumption to make because other answers choices explicitly state it when it should be taken into account. Answer choice B would require you to do some sort of mental gymnastics to tie in the "noneconomic factors" to be misrelated from the political opponents mismanagement of the economy as a whole AND that that noneconomic factor is somehow a correlative chain to the opponents economy. You'd REALLY have to unreasonably stretch to make B the right answer,

Yea I guess the key word in the sentence is MOST helps to explain. thanks

D is the correct answer because the successfulness of studies are judged by their therapeutic (intended) effects rather than their side (unintended) effects. The outcome of the study is a determination of therapeutic effects. Engle is assuming that the "various effects on the body" are therapeutic effects and not side effects.

C is incorrect because placebos by definition cannot have any effect whether it is therapeutic or side. Nobody anywhere is the argument questions whether there is a fake placebo in the test. Gauging by the curve I would assume this question is difficult because it requires an understanding of scientific concepts

This is the most difficult question I have ever seen

#feedback #help

Not sure how C is not the correct answer. Increased stress on a certain day is certianally a health habit especially when the passage directly associates stress with heart attacks. If people do not change their health habits (which would indisputably include the stress they get on Mondays) C clearly offers the most clarity in this discrepancy without any assumptions. A makes the assumption that a large product is equivalent to a work day. Can someone help make this discrepancy clear to me?

Would have liked to see 7,8,9 given more than 30 seconds for an explanation, seeing as 37% of people chose C of 9 (which is the incorrect answer) and there is no explanation given for why.

I got this question right but pretty much off of sheer luck. I was debating between B and C and chose C. HOWEVER the question stem says to resolve the conflict exclusively with the first lawyers round of questioning. B does this just as perfectly as C does. The only difference is that C explains the second lawyers questioning.... but the question is not asking about the second lawyers questioning right??? does anyone have a good answer for this?

I reasoned this identically. Commenting in hopes that I'll be notified when someone can respond with a reasonable explanation.

#help

I didn't choose B, but to be fair nowhere does it say win the answer choice that it will translate the film to Russian. It only says it should first show the film to critics. I don't see how showing the film to critics in its original format and then distributing it to the general public (presumably without changes because the answer choice doesn't say that it would change the final) isn't the most supported answer

me to ts did not work this time lmao