What's likely the fastest way to do a question like this, which is so illogical and convoluted, that it's almost impossible to just do it by eye?

Do you recommend using a highlighter as you've done in this question?

I mapped them out and luckily B matched up perfectly so I moved on.

But if I'd had to map out all of them and E was the right answer, for example, it would've taken me 5ish minutes.

The reasoning for A being correct is actually quite similar to the reasoning why % vs. absolute quantity often fails. That's how I thought about this question and got it right. For example, if the conclusion in the stimulus had mentioned that a certain generation was less likely to respond than another, that could be a reasonable conclusion. But absolute age itself can't be because, as JY mentions, 20 years ago those "older people" would've been, say, "middle aged" and still may have voted the same way.

Oi, this one tripped me up. I eliminated B on the basis of this:

/Other Evidence --> /Conclude Strep Infection

----

Infection --> Run Down

And I went to B and came up with:

6+ Hours of Sunlight --> /Conclude Plant Blooms

I immediately eliminated it because it didn't meet the causal chain I'd mapped out. I caught it after I saw that I got it wrong: if I'd merely looked at the argument as a whole instead of focusing so hard on mapping it out, I would've gotten it right pretty quickly. But on others, that failure to map out the logic can be deadly. And doing both is very time consuming.

Is there a tip or trick as to how to identify PMR questions which may trip you up based on their wording and to instead try to look at the argument more holistically?

Any tricks on how to figure this out quicker than mapping it all out? I got it right, but it took me about 3-4 minutes, and obviously that time just doesn't exist on the exam.

So basically, the underlying argument form between the stimulus and answer choice D is as follows:

One thing affects some people. But the majority aren't affected by it, so it's unreasonable to assume that this *one thing* is responsible for how people are affected.

Is that correct?

I'm still totally lost on this question. I get why my answer choice D does not work-- but we know that atmospheric ozone blocks UVB, so if we lose that ozone, we get more UVB. So if UVB is the only radiation that damages genes, don't you essentially eliminate other primary causes for reptilian depletion if UVB is also shown to be able to damage their genes?

I originally chose D, but during my BR, I chose C. I see why D is right, pretty easily. But I'm still struggling to see why C is wrong.

Here is kind of how I understand it, but I'm hoping somebody else can corroborate or correct me if I'm right or wrong:

Basically, the certain cases in C would be plankton, and the process that occurs is how those plankton change their environment. That much works, I think. But the generalization about the conditions under which a certain process can occur is advanced on the basis of examining this plankton and how it changes it's environment?

That's where I see this argument going wrong-- because no generalization about conditions is actually made. Perhaps generalizations are being made about how simpler organisms are able to alter their environments. But CONDITIONS? There is no generalization about the conditions under which this takes place.

So in sum, it's a tricky answer because if it merely said "A generalization is advanced on the basis of an examination of certain cases in which a process supporting that generalization did occur," it would be correct, or arguably correct (and probably not put as an answer in conjunction with D because of how close to correct it would be). Is that a decent estimation of what goes wrong with this answer choice?

I got this one right, but before blind review, I wasn't 100% that (C) wasn't correct. Jon says that it's because of where the notion of importance is stated, of which we know nothing about, of course.

But I eliminated it because I thought the language was too strong. Does it *prove* anything? It may strengthen or suggest something, but it doesn't prove it. Am I right in eliminating the answer choice for this reason as well?

JY, thank you. If I have to write the LSAT again, I'm going to focus on reading these. Any other science-y/tech blogs, articles, podcAsts, etc. anyone can recommend? I seem to kill every kind of reading comprehension passages except for these. They always suck my time and downgrade my scores.

BRUTAL proctors. They kept us over an hour longer than we should've been there between all of their nonsense.

First, we had to move rooms after we'd all checked in and settled.

Secondly, the proctor announced "5 minutes left" after only 25 minutes and TOTALLY fucked up my rhythm. I was on pace to finish the section I was on with a minute or two to spare and I panicked, skipped 3 questions, and then had to go back to them...only to have her announce that we had 5 more minutes when I thought we were out.

Thirdly, they kept us waiting for 25 minutes instead of 15. Man, 15 is enough! My heart was racing and to have 10 extra minutes of anxiety was definitely not appreciated.

And then after the exam, they were just dawdling about for 15 minutes after we'd handed in the exam (I didn't realize this wasn't standard, but 2 people who'd written the LSAT prior said that after they announced that the writing sample section was over, they waited for about 2 more minutes and were then released. We waited AT LEAST 15).

And that LG with the circular game. Man, I can't believe how tough it was. Seriously there wasn't even a moderately easy or "by the book" game. They were all unorthodox and tricky and that final circular game was the icing on top. Luckily I wrote it last. If that had been one of my first sections, I would've been totally frazzled for the rest of the exam.

I only had one games section and the circular one was in it. Totally killed me, this games section. And one of my reading comps. Hope it wasn't the one that counts otherwise I'm definitely below my low 160s realistic goal...that would really depress me.

For this passage, question 27. I narrowed it down to A and E. I chose E for reasons that I'm still unsure why they're wrong and it wasn't explained:

Basically, I thought E made more sense than A because the passage says that "most modern legal historians who have written on one aspect or another of special laws pertaining to women have begun with an interest in a legal idea or event or institution"...to me, that doesn't suggest there's a lack of interest in pursuing the subject, it just means that they are more interested in a micro-history of women's history, rather than a more general, broad overview of women's history. But A doesn't make that distinction.

E, on the other hand, is supported in the passage, as I see it. Here's why:

Because E suggests that there is a scarcity of a comprehensive overview of women's legal history. And in the passage, it says first that "very few legal historians have started with an interest in WOMEN'S HISTORY that they might have elected to pursue through various areas of GENERAL law" and "scholarly knowledge relating to law and the medieval Englishwoman is still FRAGMENTARY at best."

What I read that to mean is that there's a dearth of general women's history. Rather, there is a fragmentary scholarly understanding of the legal history pertaining to the Englishwoman.

Okay, I accept that I'm wrong. But I've explained why I thought I was right, and now I'm curious as to why answer choice A is better (the video answer just says "wrong" without any explanation).

I just got mine. Low 160s. Competitive, but I think I'm going to write again in June.

I chose B, and realized how silly it was after missing it both the first time and blind review. I just didn't treat it as a flawed reasoning question for some weird reason.

Would it be fair to say that IF the last sentence were constructed to be a conclusion (ie, "silencing dissenters promotes undemocratic policies and the establishment of authoritarian regimes,"), that B would then be a valid weakening question answer?