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?

This is a MSS question, and I can definitely see why LSAT writers include the word "most" here lol. So we know that CFC breaks down to its constituents elements, but only chlorine was talked about in extensive detail. If there were other elements that are as damaging as chlorine, it would be reasonable to assume that the author would at least mention them in passing.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

yeah, I agree. Got killed on this section. If the Red Devil crayfish are the ones digging the chambers, you would expect the population of dragonfly to decrease even more. I mean, are the crayfish just digging for fun? I made the assumption that the crayfish were using the chambers as a home or a trap to capture dragonfly embryos.

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.

Yeah, I got this one wrong as well. What tripped me up was the usage of "modern farmers"; are these the same farmers who farm in the modern civilizations in question? After all, it doesn't say "ALL modern civilizations that rely heavily on irrigation." I have been noticing that for the newer LSATs, even on the easier questions, it is asking you to make slightly more jumps in reasonable assumptions.

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

Same here. Make Love, Not LSAT.

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

Yeah, I agree; that is the only piece of information we know in this theoretical world. This is what makes E so challenging because of the "Any" language.

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."

Yeah, I totally agree that you really have to make a larger leap in making a reasonable assumption for this one. I think that to see why D is really correct, you have to start from line 41.

The author describes that science and humanities begin at "widely separate points," but in achieving a better understanding in their respective fields, they start to "borrow" skill sets from each other. ("Science does not depend exclusively on measurable data"..."Humanities in fact profit...)

As a result, the author thinks, at least unwittingly, both disciplines have borrowed from each other in the past.

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.

#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!

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."