What gave this one away for me was "many species are harmful to potato plants" which made C the obvious answer, because it describes that in this case the aphids attracted are of the species who do not harm the potato plants.

Barely got this right, but how I saw it was that the other answers are literally nonsensical and terrible, and A is the only one that realistically COULD make sense. B-E are yapping about stuff that has nothing to do with the more likely chance someone gets convicted. I think more than anything, all of the other answers are paradoxes themselves. My issue with this question is that you can't get the answer right unless you read ALL of the questions, and even then it doesn't make A obvious or close at all. Tricky question, should be rated higher on difficulty.

this question can suck me

I got the question wrong, but I think what helps with these questions is to directly look at the wording, when I look at E, it's saying her intention was to EXPLORE important moral questions. This is sufficient, but not necessary, why make the argument about the critics being wrong about it, if in the first place, but the actual argument depends on her RAISING the important moral questions, which is why the answer of. B is correct. It's tough, but that's how I figured B was correct rather than E, tough question though and im probably skipping it on the lsat LOL

#feedback There's a typo in the "Let's Review Section" I believe it should say "Jo is talking only about the most productive programmers" as opposed to "Jo is talking only about the most production programmers"

What confused me the most about this question was what exactly the argument here was in the conclusion. Clearly it's speaking about pleasure in the premises, yet there's no mention of pleasure in the conclusion, only "artistic merit" but by looking in hindsight now, it seems that the conclusion is the fact that artistic merit is derived by the art critic, who doubly so can influence the pleasure, and undermine it as well.

This one is confusing if you think too much, hence why I think the best way to approach Point At Issue is to just simplify things as much as you can.

For this question, I simply looked at what they would be disagreeing on, How I see it is that "Teaching children chess" is all that matters, with the rest of the sentence just being context. However, it's tricky because I feel that you can easily say another answer

Don't second guess yourself! On the one question I got incorrect, it was mainly because I second-guessed, and my initial answer was actually correct.

The LSAT is tricky, but if you feel on a question that an answer is correct, then most likely it is.

#feedback Difficult question, took me longer than the recommended but J.Y explained it well, nice one!

How I recognize it:

Context: Many nursing homes have prohibitions against having pets

Conclusion: And these should be lifted

presence of animal can yield.. + pet makes one time rewarding + important to more people as life span increases = premises

Answer: C - because it demonstrates that the policy should be changed, indicated by "many nursing homes have prohibitions against having pets" due to it being true, C seems to be correct.

Whoever wrote the "for which there is no clear evidence whether these were shared by ichthyosaurs." for D is evil, straight up. Literally just blatantly made to trip you up.

I'm confused when it comes to this, I was told that the LSAT did not require any outside information. While most students taking the LSAT have likely taken a lab in their life and are familiar with how experiments are conducted, doesn't this count as outside information? On the test for example, in regards to an experiment, am I supposed to assume that every question needs to account for a placebo? It's confusing, because I thought this was about Logical Reasoning, yet i'm being told in this lesson that I have to account for blinding, placebo, and other issues which pertain to science experiments.