Et tu, LSAT?

PT135 S4 Q23 (Domesticated wolves)

Because it was the first question that made gasp.

Months later, when I saw it again, I still found it challenging but was able to correctly work through it under timed conditions. Progress!

C felt like a trap to me. I thought that, perhaps, the widespread adoption of air conditioning led architects to design buildings with higher ceilings and thick walls. And then, after that, higher ceilings and thick walls were built in parts of North America without demand for air conditioning for other reasons (i.e, fashion, standardization, new benefits discovered). Notice in C, we are not given any info about the construction date of these thick-walled, high-ceilinged houses in regions without demand for air-conditioning. That allows for the possibility that these types of houses were built after an initial surge of houses built this way for air conditioning-related reasons. Thus, you could still "mainly attribute" the architectural change to air conditioning since air new conditioning in this case is the direct cause of the change, no?

Ultimately I chose D because, in the moment, it seemed to strengthen the argument better than C. I understand JY's point in his explanation video that additional, unstated benefits of thin walls (i.e. less cost) could outweigh the downsides associated with escaping air. And if we are to say D strengthens the argument, then we are assuming that the downsides of escaped air would be a sufficient deterrent to a change in American architecture toward thick walls and high ceilings. And I get that, in LSAT land, we cannot make that assumption.

But could the same not be said about C? If we choose C, are we not still making the assumption that the areas of North America without demand for air-conditioning did not adopt thick-walls and high-ceilings as part of a trend after they were first popularized in areas of North America where the thick-walls and high-ceilings would have been attributable to the growing popularity of air conditioning?

I guess it comes down to which assumption is more reasonable to make. This feels wildly subjective. I can see the case for both choices being more reasonable. I am not trying to fight the LSAT here. I want to know, in the future, when I am given the choice between two answers that depend on assumptions, how I am supposed to decide which assumptions are reasonable to make and which ones are not. Or am I just missing something totally obvious? HELP! #feedback

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorarachniophyte (helped me understand the stim)

you have got to be shitting me

If I score 180, I will name my first-born Shallow Dip.

I pulled my hair out trying to solve this using lawgic before watching this video and realizing JY's explanation is far more intuitive. But how should I know that this is not a great question to use lawgic for?

I picked D, and I see why it is wrong. But...

A is just killing me. I am not convinced. Band A sharing a musical arranger with Band B is a good indicator of whether someone will like Band B? Really?

Paul Buckmaster did arrangements for the Rolling Stones, a band that John loves. So John will probably like the music of Taylor Swift, another artist Buckmaster worked with as a musical arranger? Really?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Buckmaster

Quincy Jones worked as an arranger for Frank Sinatra as well as Dina Washington. So someone who likes Frank Sinatra will probably like Dina Washington too? Seriously? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quincy_Jones

I know I am supposed to accept that the LSAT writers are not wrong, but I don't understand what I am missing here. What information do we have support arrangement being a factor that determines whether Jackie will like a rock album or not?

I suppose that the specific features of music shared between Moral Vacuum and Cruel Herd on their new album (complex, acoustic instrumentation, harmonic sophistication of early 60s jazz) are specific enough for us to assume that the musical arranger is the driving force behind those shared features. But A asks us to assume that Jackie didn't care for Cruel Herd before, while accepting that a new arranger would be enough to make her probably like the band's new music. But, and I'm sorry for making outside assumptions, but since when is arrangement the determining factor for liking a rock album over, say, songwriting or, like, the feeling that the music gives you or whether you find the band members attractive.

What if Jackie just can't stand the singer of the Cruel Herd or the guitar sound or, I don't know, the incessant, clanging tambourine that is a signature component of every Cruel Herd song?

I see why C is the only answer here, but I am tripped up by the grammar.

C implies that the phrase "has the potential to be a richer source of social criticism" conveys the same point as "has more promise as a source of social criticism." But they... don't?

As I read it...

"...has the potential to be a richer source" says that something could merely POSSIBLY be a richer source of social criticism.

On the other hand...

"has more promise as a source of social criticism" explicitly states that it has more promise.

In my mind, for these two phrases to convey the same point, the first would need to say something like "...has MORE potential to be a richer source."

I could understand this discrepancy if the question asked what they seem to disagree over. But the question stem explicitly asks what they disagree over, point blank. What am I missing here?