I so badly want to just say this is a bad question for having C in there but Im gonna try to rationalize it.

E is for sure right we cannot deny that. I didn't choose it however because I thought oh just cause they have to decrease the price doesn't mean it doesn't get the highest bid. The selling price however is not about whether they sell it for the highest bid (as I for some reason thought in my mind), its that they must sell it for the highest possible price. If we know they could've sold it for a higher price, but they also have the condition of needing to make sure they have majority ownership by its own citizens so they have to decrease the selling price, then by definition the new selling price is not the highest price, making it the right answer. In retrospect it's easy to see why E is right, but explaining why C is wrong is another question.

The government cannot determine whether the citizens will have majority ownership vs. the government must ensure they have majority ownership. I think all the comments are focusing on the fact that this is incredibly misleading, but unfortunately I think C is wrong just cause it's one of the highest bidders, therefore they may not even sell it to them. The question stem says they must violate one of the requirements in which of the following situations, and in this situation they do not have to violate the ownership requirement because they may not even sell it to them. In E, on the other hand, whoeevr they sell it to necessitates the restrictions that reduce the price to below the previously highest possible selling price.

I chose A on the first go around then came back and ended up spending almost 5 minutes on it and still choosing A. I also chose in BR. On this PT I really got called out for missing minor details such as this. I think it comes down to translating statements into lawgic and using letters to represent exactly what the statement says, not always just general ideas. Properly and highly trained could be similar general ideas maybe, but this is exactly the kinda stuff the LSAT will get you on. In the future I need to realize that especially when a question is taking me a long time cause two answers seem equally right, I def misread something and need to not just keep reading them over and over but think about exactly what they're saying, and if it requires translating than translating them again more specifically.

I chose B then D.

B is wrong because the manufacturers could make the correct conclusion (that old people suffer from insomnia have something wrong with their pineal gland producing melatonin) instead of this overly broad conclusion that everyone decreases the amount of melatonin they produce, and the argument could still be fine just cause they can profit off of melatonin sales. I think I can learn from this that just because someone could profit from an argument doesn't mean that the argument is automatically flawed. I point that out in flawed method of reasoning questions all the time and yet made the same mistake.

D is wrong because I think I thought of the phenomenon taking melatonin and that the effect is being able to sleep and maybe they mix up that not having enough melatonin causes u to be an insomniac? Looking back I really had to reach here and should have known this was problematic. Just cause somethings hard to understand does not mean its right. Not only is the conclusion talking about a correlation and this AC talks about causation, but if you can't clearly map the phenomenon cause and effects to things in the stimulus then its probably not right.

I think I didn't choose E because I just skipped over the detail that the sample is only old people with insomnia and thought that this was fine. This is obvious that the sample would be unrepresentative because how could you conclude that all people are losing their pineal gland melatonin function from a sample of old insomniacs?

I think me getting this wrong comes down to attention to detail as just having the clarity to recognize that B didn't feel right and D was hard to support, so I probably missed something in the question stem.

I chose D here because I thought it explains that people do believe in statistics they just need anecdotes to understand it. This does not, however, explain why anecdotes are usually unrepresentative but people are not affected by them. I can't even think of what it would explain. If people don't pay attention to statistics anyway, then anecdotes helping people understanding them would not affect the occurrence of people paying attention to statistics OR the fact that most anecdotes are misleading (even if the few anecdotes that help stats are not misleading). I think the issue was not taking a second to realize that this is a RRE question and that it would help to just rephrase to myself what the issue actually is. The issue was that people do not pay attention to stats, but do pay attention to anecdotes and often let are moved by them. Anecdotes tend to be unrepresentative and misleading though, so how are most peoples beliefs are generally inaccurate and misled by these anecdotes. Anecdotes helping stats would only help the few people who do pay attention to stats, so this does not change the issue. People not allowing the misleading anecdotes to affect their beliefs does help reconcile, however, as most people can still read and be more interested in commonly misleading anecdotes, and maybe some are moved by them, but most of these people are able to tell when they're unrepresentative so they don't affect their beliefs.

This question is so easy I just misread the stim. I thought it said the one's waiting were in more pain :/

Q21

I chose E but this is wrong because the argument of the passage is about how our conception of law and people being in control of their decisions is wrong, therefore the law's punishment for people should be changed. The only AC that gets close to this is C, saying that our conception of how math is understood is wrong, therefore the way its taught should be replaced. E does not have anything about something being wrong, therefore something should be changed. I think it may have an analogous idea in being fully autonomous, but its wrong for the same reason as B is in that it doesn't parallel the argument, it just describes an idea that's similarly talked about. I think this is an example of me not fully taking in the question stem and just goes to show how important it is to understand whats being asked.

Q9

I chose A and this is descriptively inaccurate in that the psychologists' research was not through "actual trials". The bulk of the passage is about these psych experiments and no where does it say that they were done in a court trial setting. I think I chose this one because it included both the simulated trials and the psych trials, but the fact is that they never really return to the simulated trials and mainly talk about the implications of the psych findings. I also may have glossed over the descriptively inaccurate part of psych research showing the effectiveness of stealing thunder in actual trials because it seemed as though these experiments showed that they would be effective in a trial. This is a dangerous inference because the AC says "its effectiveness in actual trials has been demonstrated through research conducted by psychologists". This does not mean that the psych research supports its effectiveness, it means that the psychologists were demonstrating it in an actual trial, which would look more like psychologists doing research on live court trials going on. C is right because it states that stealing thunder is supported by psych experiments showing that it would work on jurors and that's it. This is pretty low detail and broad, and that is exactly what a main point AC should be, it should include what the passage is about and nothing more. I made a similar mistake in the previous passage in this section and I think I should expect that main point right answers should seem so simple its almost dumb.

Q16 - I chose A, but the misunderstanding here is definitely a problem of knowing the speaker. The question asks what many lawyers would be likely to agree with, not what the author would agree with. The author 100% would agree with A, but in no place in the passage does it say that many lawyers already agree with this. The only time the passage talks about what many lawyers believe is in the first paragraph, saying that if the opposition is going to reveal it, they should offer up information, otherwise it will be damaging. From this statement, we cannot deduce that they would also agree that lawyers should be concerned with how readily it can be positively framed, all we really know is that they care about whether the opposition is going to reveal it. This is what D talks about, and the thing that we have to imply to reach this is that the opposition would be saying it later to derive an advantage which is a pretty easy inference to make considering its a court case. Otherwise I think I should have been able to realize that I read the question stem wrong considering that A is not the only one that the author may be able to agree with.

Q1 - I chose E and I think noticing that the passage was meant to answer the rhetorical question in the first paragraph would have definitely helped. The point is not that they should be regarded as sister arts, sure the author believes that, but the point is to talk about why perfume should be considered great works of art. E is hard because a lot of the passage talks about perfumes similarities to painting, but the point of them talking about that is not simply to say that they should be considered sister arts, but because perfume is by itself a great work of art. The best way to rule out E, however, is that E is a premise that supports D. The main point of a passage cannot be a premise to another more important conclusion of the passage, and if I had noticed that E was a subconclusion/major premise to support D, then it would have been a lot more clear. Also E really only talks about the second paragraph, whereas the whole passage has to do with supporting E. I think in the future it will be better for me to favor the more broad and all-encompassing main point ACs rather than just looking for the most detailed and specific.

I definitely translated this out and got that made the jump from national to large without even thinking. Even so, I chose B and I should have also been able to rule that answer out because we only care about tax revenues not how much visitors spend. Maybe tax revenues increase if we just have more visitors overall. I think to avoid misreading and jumping like this, I could have realized that the argument sounded fine after that first read, and that I should be able to figure out the SA before I even go into the ACs so I don't waste more time than I have to. I could also be more careful in my translating to lawgic and use first letters of the first word or literally every first letter of the object so that I don't skip over stuff like this.

The best advice JY gives is to not concede a false premise. The flawed method of reasoning AC must point out the main flaw the argument makes, and the right answer choice can't just gloss over a major flaw and say "even if this is true"

I picked B then E in BR. This definitely seems a lot easier when you make the inference that han purple was discovered by accident in the making of some white glass. I completely missed this inference. I think to pick up on this inference better I need to realize on the first read through of the ACs that I don't think any of them is right given my understanding of them and the stimulus. When this happens, I clearly misread something or an inference went over my head. It's better to reread the stimulus one more time and think about what its saying than get the AC wrong, or even flag it and come back later if I've already spent a minute on it. The thought didn't even cross my mind that if they're made with the same ingredients and same process that the han accident would have happened in the making of white glass and not in the making of something else. I guess this means that when I see a hypothesis such as this where the argument seems to make a big jump and none of the ACs directly support the conclusion as maybe a SA, then I can either one eliminate the one's that have little to do with the discovery, and then two, thinnk about what inference the arguer is making by jumping to this conclusion.

I also think its interesting that JY supports A almost with the same kinda method of a NA question. If A weren't true, then it would be hard to explain how han purple was made by accident in the making of white glass, so by that logic A strengthens the argument because it makes the accident more likely.

A - A is right because if all the han purple was made in the same area as white glass, then it makes more sense that it would have been made by accident while someone was making white glass. If they were in completely different geographical regions, the argument would certainly be flawed and there would be no way that the accident was done in the making of white glass. Its tempting to say "just cause they're found in the same region doesn't mean han was made by accident", but you first have to notice that inference that it was made by accident in the making of white glass, and then you can see that if the geographic similarity were not true or even completely untrue, then the argument would fall apart.

B - The purposes of white glass and han purple have nothing to do with the discovery of han purple. I chose this first because I thought oh if its made by accident then it must be more rare, but we're talking about the first han purple, not whether it's made by accident every time its produced.

C - This one also talks about rarity like B, but this time about the actual process of making it. This is wrong because just because few people know how to do it does not mean it was made by accident.

D - The accessibility of ingredients also has nothing to do with the discovery of han purple. Just because they use easy to get ingredients does not support the argument that it was made by accident.

E - This one you can use the same kinda rarity argument in B or C to refute.

None of these had explicitly to do with the discovery of han purple, but in A, you have to see that some han purple had to be in the same location as white glass, and if all of the han purple was in the same location as all the white glass, then it makes the accident even more likely.

I chose B but its just descriptively inaccurate. I was def between B and D, but I think I should have at least seen that D is just talking more about what is going, even though I was unsure if it translated directly. B talks about issues that are far-reaching and hard to back up. Also, I think I avoided D because the first sentence of the stimulus didn't seem like an argument to be even though it had two conditional statements. The words "since" and "then" should have indicated to me that the second conditional wasn't just as premise that we have to take to be true, but it was a subconclusion from that first conditional. I also did not remember that "is the same as" indicates a biconditional, which could have led me to seeing that saying obligations and legal obligations are the same thing is a major flaw.

I understood this by translating it into lawgic:

If understanding requires knowing the dictionary definition, then understanding that word requires understanding every word in that dictionary definition

DD → EW

Some people (and babies) say some words that they do not know the dictionary definitions of the words they utter

(Some people)

I was able to conclude that the right answer would be result of the contrapositive of the first premise that understanding does not require knowing the dictionary definition, but I couldn't find it. B seemed close so I chose it in BR, but now I see that this argument would not be enough for B to be right, since the second premise does not specify that those people (and babies) actually understand the words.

I ruled out the last three ACs since they have a conditional, but E is correct because it includes the conclusion that understanding does not require knowing the dictionary definition, IF they do understand some words without knowing every word in that dictionary definition.

In other words, the second premise sets up for some people understanding words but, it does not actually negative the Necessary condition of the first premise. The correct answer includes both that negation and the negation of the sufficient condition.

22 - I chose E but this is wrong because it requires the assumption that other contingency fee arrangements usually pay based on damage instead of normal fee, whereas we only know that this one doesn't do that. I think I chose this instead of A cause it seemed to be more explicitly stated than A, and I just forgot that A was pretty explicitly stated in the final para.

24 - I chose D and this is wrong because yes it may make it difficult for lawyers, but it does not make it difficult in and of itself. I think this question is an example of where I have to take what the lsat gives me in the sense that this passage literally says "would be onerous for a number of reasons..." and then lists C as one of those reasons.

25 - I chose E and this is wrong because it's just not stated in the passage. I know I chose it just because of the word "just" but this is just way too long of a reach and B better encampsualtes what the quote means.

26 - I chose D at first but C in BR. This was a logical error as the passage states that contingency arrangements should be made "only in" introducing necessary conditions. This AC states one of those conditions, but as a sufficient condition, saying that if the lawyer is not certain then it can be made. This kind of logical error may come bite me again, so I think I need to be more diligent about noticing when they present conditional relationships.

I chose E, thinking that radiation could be a separate explanation, but now I understand that this wouldn't change anything. I mainly got this wrong because I thought of methane and CO2 interchangeably and missed that distinction completely. The fact that I chose E though is bad cause that doesn't weaken the argument at all in fact it almost strengthens it. I think in the future if I go through all the ACs and none of them seems right (as I did), then it should be blatantly obvious that I missed a detail somewhere.

I chose C then B in BR. I definitely also thought B was saying it wasn't a random sample, but now I see that it's just saying they were equally likely to pick defective as nondefective, both at 50%.

C is also wrong because it sure maybe that is a problem, but it just doesn't point out the issue with the sample and it being true would not fix the fact that 20% of the sample is defective when only 5% is allowed to be. We're talking about the whole, and the stim doesn't give us any information about the various sites' representativeness, so we can't assume that they're unrepresentative like this AC tries to point out.

D is right because it points out the primary flaw that the sample is not representative in terms of frequency of defects. We do not know if they are picking one's that they suspect are defective which would skew the sample.

I had 13 minutes left when I started this passage, but still got 4 wrong. I think I should have used this advantage to better understand the passage because getting 20, 24, and 26 wrong all had to do with the fact that I didn't know what the author's stances really were. In retrospect its easy to see now that he introduces left-to-right, and then front-to-back and explains why front-to-back is not sufficient. While I was taking it I could have better grasped this by understanding the structure of the passage. I wrote down a low res but did not relate the main idea of each paragraph to the authors purpose/stance/argument.

20 - Chose E basically cause of why JY said because I thought it was just complicated. Could have seen that the final paragraph specifically mentions the two requirements, but I generally think this was an issue of not understanding that his stance was that front-to back wasn't enough, which would have led me to see that the right answer choice here would be that one approach is better than the other (With the physicist answer being clearly wrong)

24 - I chose E but this is the same probably as with 20 as I would have easily seen D is the best answer had I understood the argument he's making. Even with that I can't map the concepts in E to anything that's going on, making it obvious that this answer is wrong.

26 - I chose E first. Saying it's unsuccessful is a bit of a reach I think it's more like it just needs the two characteristics of explaining what mirrors do and what happens when we look in them. Even with this though the explanation in E is not right because that is not why it's problematic. Left-to-right is about rotating field of sight not front-to-back. B is right because we can assume that if he criticizes front-back for being based on this false premise that the alternative explanation does not.

27 - I chose D here because the paragraph as a whole seemed to be about this different between mental constructs and perceptions. The question asked what the purpose of this quote was though, which was its being an example for something. This language should have made it clear to me what the real purpose was. Even with this language indicator, not focusing our eyes would not be relevant to distinguishing mental constructs and perceptions.

For 13 I chose A then C. I originally chose A because of the statement immediately after the quote about real world sales with virtual currency, but that would be like buying a real house with V-bucks. C seemed more right, but in BR i knew that somewhere in the passage it should more explicitly define what intentionally commodified means. I didn't find those exact words, but the first paragraph does define it and I think I just need to expect in the future that the LSAT will express the same idea with different words. Had a problem with this earlier on the test.

Originally chose C then D. C is wrong because it does not at all explain why infections would have increased. D is wrong because it contradicts the second statement saying that the rate has actually stayed the same for infections per population. E is right because the increased rate of infections is actually an effect of the new medical practices. I def got this wrong because I was short on time so I think I just need to not let myself get trapped with time sinks early in a section.

Chose A at first but C in the BR. I think On the contrary threw me off and made me think that the conclusion is that it actually was adverse. Despite that I still should have figured out that the other three answer choices are weakening the evidence that there are more species now. This could have informed me that C cant be right either cause it also makes it seem like there is an adverse effect. Overall, I could have avoided all of this by identifying the conclusion and premises, and that more animals being counted in the latter survey strengthens the conclusion that there are no adverse effects.

I originally chose D. I def missed this because I did not identify the first sentence as the conclusion of the study and instead just saw it as a premise or support for the study or something. D is wrong and weakens the argument because if the factories emit other gasses then it may be those other chemicals instead of sulfur that mess up your smell. A is right because it doesn't explain the difference between the control and experimental groups. In the future I think it's good practice to identify the conclusion and premises immediately or else I can mis understand a stimulus like this.

Chose E then A in BR.

A is wrong because even if they asked a huge sample of friends and family members, the coincidence can still be explained by just know their friend or family member rather than telepathy.

E is wrong because its just not circular reasoning. You do not have to accept telepathy to accept the fact that friends and family members know what you're thinking.

I think I got this wrong twice and didn't choose B because I took it a little too literally. I thought that knowing what you're thinking meant literally knowing what you're thinking instead of just the colloquial occurrence of this. In the future though I think I should be ready for alternative explanation to be a flaw and I should not just choose AC choices that I know do not fully explain the method of reasoning. When neither of the two I am between seem right it probably means I missed something.

Chose B then E on BR. Think I would have easily gotten this one if I noticed that the conclusion said all microorganisms instead of all amoeba, because this would have ruled out both of these answer choices as their conclusions did not extrapolate to an overinclusive superset. I think E was super wrong, however, because its conclusion not only should have mentioned a superset like Canada, but it starts talking about how hikers feel instead of why BC/Canadian trails are concentrated in low lying regions. I think by mapping this out mentally I could have gotten this one right, but IK I overthought it cause I picked A immediately and started questioning my choice and spent too long on it just to get it wrong.

Chose D but then C in BR.

C is wrong because it is just the reverse of the premise and does not connect the ideas of feeling helpless to wanting to improve society.

D is right because it makes the bridge between these two ideas.

I think I was unable to translate this because I did not assume that the beliefs of being powerless and having no effect were the same thing. On future tests I should expect them to simply reword things like that to try to get you to miss that they are the same concept.

Also had a similar scenario a few weeks ago. Had been taking tests twice a week, so I decided to give my self a full week break. It felt wrong but I got my score back a little higher. Going to take two again this week but then just drill between this friday and next friday.