It happens to me on every prep test on every question. The latest was any question on PT 51.

I got this right by PoE. The wording of A is deliberately horrible and hard to pin down what exactly it's actually referring to.

Even though I got it right, I found this question odd because it was challenging to find the argument structure and the conclusion. It doesn't seem like a coherent argument but rather a statement of facts. I'm still don't feel 100% certain that I see how sentence 2 is the conclusion, and how sentence 1 supports it. I'm looking for a more detailed explanation.

#help

Although I got the question right, one thing that made me hesitate on D is that it makes the assumption that the 1,000 subjects who were tested were all prescribed the medication, rather than just having been participating in a study. That's usually the type of assumption I try to avoid on the lsat, but I was able to get it right due to it still being the only answer that works.

I got this question wrong, because to me, the fact that something disappears doesn't mean that it's "not accepted." That's why A seemed like a better answer than D.

If something was a fad- let's use fidget spinners as an example, and it disappeared, it's not because they ceased to be accepted, it's because people simply lost interest. That's not the same thing.

Can anyone offer insight as to how my logic is wrong? #help

I got this only by process of elimination. E seemed to be too strong, generalizing all doctors based on some vague premises. But it was the only question supported at all. I found this question strange.

Looks like many people including myself made the same mistake. It's because this might be the first Principal question to have the "except" twist and we were all conditioned to gloss over the stem when we first saw it. Shows you that you always have to be prepared for an unexpected twist and read carefully.

@studentservice

Samsung Galaxy Note 8 with Android 8.0.

I'm not sure where to check the current version, but in the play store it says I last updated August 5th and there's no option to update. This issue has happened randomly since I downloaded the app in the early summer. Sometimes it works fine, but usually at least 1 section skips to the end at some point. I usually choose 4 sections, mariana, 35 min with 0 background or distractions.

I'm very frustrated by this question and questions like it. Despite having finished the curriculum and having done PT's for a while, I'm still struggling with parallel reasoning, especially questions whereby the conditional mapping relies on either subscript or implicit conditional statements- and this has both. Mapping these particular kinds of questions is easily my greatest weakness on the LSAT.

There are no lessons on either utilizing subscript nor on making conditional inferences, and I have almost no intuition in knowing whether to look for them and where to find them. At some point in the question reviews, JY just occasionally begins to use subscript and to make inferences like those seen here without much explanation as to the train of thought in locating them or using them. There is no emphasis in being able to do this at all in the curriculum.

Sure, after I watch the video I can understand why it works, but while reading a stimulus or AC it just doesn't click. The intuition of finding it isn't there.

For example, it could never have occurred to me to read the conclusion of the stimulus "so it is untrue that both classes next year will not be intro level" and mapping it in the way he did in this video, and then also splitting it into two statements the way that he did. The problem is that I'm conditioned in looking for conditional modifiers and going from there. That is what the lessons teach and that is what we've practiced the vast majority of the time. When I attempt to infer logic rather than to write out what is stated explicitly, I doubt myself and I'm often wrong, and I just waste too much time on the question in a directionless tailspin.

I'm asking for help from anyone who can help me understand how they got in the right frame of mind, and on the right track regarding questions that rely on subscript and where the logic isn't stated expressly in English.

#help

This is a bullshit question with lots of holes in its reasoning. To assume that the policy places a disproportionate burden on lower income people because they're more likely to buy older cars is a much bigger leap than to assume that de-icing roads falls under the category of maintenance. What if the average age of the older cars bought are still recent enough? What if there's a new way to protect older cars from corrosion? It seems to be commonsense that keeping a road safe from the effects of weather can be considered maintenance. All of the explanations as to why D is correct and B isn't are inadequate.

Doesn't help that the stem is also confusing in an already subtle and difficult question. The stem says "in order for the conclusion to be properly drawn" which indicated to me an SA question. I understand that "must be assumed" might indicate an NA, but it's not very clear and I'm not entirely convinced that the stem should be interpreted as an NA. Can anyone offer a good explanation in how they made that distinction? I have always been able to easily distinguish between the two until this question. This is frustrating to me because I don't think we should be worried about misinterpreting question stems because of overlapping phrasing. #help

Question 4- I don't think this was a good explanation of the right answer. Just because something is innovative doesn't necessarily mean it's unprecedented. These words aren't always interchangeable. Many innovative things aren't purely original. The first iPhone was innovative, but it wasn't the first smart phone and borrowed many elements from other forms of technology. I can see how this answer could be right, but I can also see how subjective, necessary, or arbitrary can each also be the right answer, but there is no explanation at all here other than "nah". Not a very good review. Can anyone else offer a better explanation of why this answer is right and the others are wrong? #help

In an MSS, the stimulus supports the AC. Here, they are asking for the AC to support the stimulus, in other words, strengthen it.

This reply is 4 years old and you probably won't see this, but thank you. This cleared everything up.

I think this is the most ridiculous LSAT question I've seen.

I'm interested too! I live in NJ but work in the city often. Anyone else nearby looking for a local study partner?

I was expecting to see the answers on the passage page, without realizing that if I had continued to the next questions page the answers would appear again. Stupid. Sorry, this can be deleted.

It didn't register in my head to translate the sentence "since antique dealers generally carry antiques that have their ages authenticated" to ad > aa and I got the question wrong..

Is it recommended by 7sage in comparative problem sets like this, to go through the questions after reading the first passage, and then read the second passage and go through them again? It's strange that they show the explanations this way without mentioning it anywhere.

#help

Most of the questions that I get wrong are because I misread one word or some other stupid oversight. I've also been trying to come up with a way to avoid that, but can't come up with anything other than read the rules or things you don't understand twice.

This is the first MP question I've come across where you need lawgic to find the conclusion. Not what I was expecting from the first question.

A says, "this tendency, (a decreased incidence of major illnesses), is present whether the power plant is nuclear or not", tells me that they have confirmed correlation with decreased cancer levels in both nuclear and non nuclear power plants.

That's not failing to make a distinction, which is the major flaw that occurs in the stimulus, when it's not distinguished between organic/ non-organic produce. I don't understand how A is right.

#help