For #24, I think that even with the absence of the word "all", the answer choice would still be wrong. It was only the "rare varieties" (Line 19) that experienced wild swings in prices. In fact, lines 22-23 states that common bulbs were actually sold for very low prices during this time period.

Isn't the main conclusion "It is very unlikely that a trait as rare as hairlessness emerged on two separate occasions?"

#27

I understand why answer choice E is bad if go by

Group Think -> Cohesiveness.

However paragraph 1 gives an example of how a group that is low in cohesiveness can become more cohesive, and eventually, potentially succumb to groupthink. I guess this answer choice would be a lot better if it also stated "...can evolve, and under circumstances, develop all of the symptoms of groupthink."

Quick question on #8, answer choice (A):

"Clay is an important constituents of many, if not all drilling muds."

Does "many, if not all" work the same way as "Either, or?"

Thanks!

I did the same thing; I split up my boards up according to the Q3 rule. In addition, I have also written subscripts to designate which ones are F,N, & W.

I am still confused by #27, answer choice (A). How are "details" interpreted on the LSAT? Like Accounts Playable stated below, Passage A provides plenty of details on the different theories.

Would answer choice D be correct if we reword it as:

The implications of the claims made in support of this conclusion have not been shown to be correct.

By "implications," I mean that just because you are copying Providence's style, it doesn't mean that it is sufficient to show that he is lacking aesthetic merit.

Wow Question 21 is so BS. Just because his sculpture is suppose to be a portrait of Fuller, it doesn't mean it has to represent a human form!!!! I understand that the LSAT expects us to reasonably assume this...but if you actually go to any of the Guggenheim museums, you will find so many examples of abstract art that you will have not the slightest inkling on what they are suppose to represent, unless you read the descriptions next to them.

If Noguchi lived during the Renaissance, I could understand. But Noguchi lived during the periods of both traditional and modern schools...How the hell am I suppose to know what is a reasonable assumption??? I could have a rectangle made out of nickle steel, point at it and say, "This is my sculpture of R. Buckminster Fuller."

I am still quite confused by answer choice (C) for question #4. Doesn't lines 23 to 27 support this? The author concedes that some evolutionary changes do enhance reproductive success....

For #16, why can't lines 38-39 by a consideration for "harm" in Answer Choice (A)?

An offender, by definition, is someone who does something wrong. If "we have a duty to do to offenders what they have done", doesn't that action constitute as a harm to the offender?

I guess this wouldn't work because an illegal action and harm can be mutually exclusive.

ugh, I got tripped up by the usage of "assertion" and "hypothesis."

I thought that for (B), perhaps the native salmons mated with the sockeye salmons. We know that the native salmons did not interbreed with each other, but perhaps they were open-minded to breed with salmons of a different specie.

It is a lot faster if you run the contrapositive of "S → AC" initially. You get to see the bridge right away.

Is there anyway to weaken the first hypothesis that was rejected? I mean, the author only said that it was "too small for that purpose." What if an answer choice were,

"Stone Age people in Ireland often bind together small pieces of flint objects in order to create a weapon."

If this were true, the stylized human head in the argument could be a part of weapon; it could be combined with two other stylized human heads to form a mace.

Another way to look at this question is focusing on "either way" in the conclusion. I think this signals "tautology" in the sense that the author isn't primarily concerned with answering the question he posted in the argument. Rather, the focus is that the results of the survey is signaling something that is deeply wrong with the educational system.

Thanks for doing this! Will this be recorded?

lol, I loved your example of bring up poor Cicero. A more apt example would be Caesar. Caesar was known for his numerous affairs (Some historians believe that Brutus was actually his son.), and he also embezzled from the Roman Treasury in his fight against Pompey. (These were funds reserved in case of an another Gaulish invasion. Caesar thought that the money was no longer necessary, as the whole of Gaul was subdued by that point.)

Isn't this argument making a binary cut? (Which is a cookie-cutter flaw.)

So for #15, what are the two inferences? (Motivational and what else?)

For #24, I still don't understand why D is the right answer...The whole passage is littered with examples of how Dostoyevsky believes his position is superior.

Lines 16-17 ("The radical critics' demand that reality be depicted 'as it is' was meaningless for Dostoyevsky.

Lines 26-28 (Dostoyevsky refers to the radical critics insistence on that art must serve a particular political view as a "shameful destiny.")

Lines 30-33 (Dostoyevsky says that the utilitarian claim is "contradiction.")

Lines 42-44 (Dostoyevsky thinks that the radical critics requirement that art must be useful at all costs as "unsatisfactory.")

Sure, we don't know what the author thinks. But the author presented Dostoyevsky's views as superior to the other ones.

Great advice @! I have always slacked off on RC because the earlier passages from PT 30s and 40s were relatively easy. But yeah, RC has certainly gotten a lot harder, especially the questions. Please there be no more future passages on tectonic plates.

I thought this one wasn't too bad. After reading the argument, three things immediately came to mind on how to strengthen it.

1.) Acetylaslicylic acid helps to decrease the production of immune cells in the brain. (Mentioned in video).

2.) Acetylaslicyic acid helps to decrease excess protein BA (If it does, then less Microglia would be released, hence less poison would be released as well.)

3.) Acetylsalicylic acid helps to inhibit the poison released by microglia.

As J.Y. mentioned, the key is to realize that Premise 2 does a pretty good job in supporting the conclusion; the goal is to figure out how to make Premise 1 tangible to the conclusion.

lol, I think that J.Y. was a D2 player.

Man, C is really tricky. C would certainly strengthen the argument had it said "the more distinct compounds required to produce a flavor, the more it does to mask the difference in flavor."

According to the argument, babblers continue to bark after "most members of the group have been able to take cover." After most of the babblers are able to take cover, do we still have a large number of babblers? Logically speaking, it is possible since "most" doesn't connote a specific quantity.

However, the reason I didn't pick (B) is because if predators are intimidated by a large number of babblers, why bother to camouflage in the first place? Why wouldn't the babblers just simply stand their ground?