Yeah for #4 I was between A and C, and differentiated between what the author would agree with and what the critics said themselves. But that was the only reason I got to it right. Would it be an assumption to think the author would agree with the critics she keeps bringing up??? #help
For Q20, I eliminated the correct answer choice D, thinking that it was a trap answer.
The passage says the pigeons only need to "sniff the air en route and/or at the [release] site to know the direction of home." Doesn't this imply that the "odors detectable in their home territories" is unnecessary? The answer choice seems to be consistent with Papi's theory, since he says that the only necessary smells are those from the air en route to the release site and/or those at the release site.
#help
Did anyone else think transparent plot devices were a good thing or just me? Cuz I chose B for #6 and fucked up cuz it sounded like something the critics would like. #help
Can someone help me out here? How are we supposed to annotate and shorthand these passages in the same way JY does on a digital exam? Just use the highlight and underline tools? That's gonna take way more time than it would on paper with a pencil right?
This question makes no sense at all. For answer D to even work, you'd have to assume that any criticisms against a film that is successful are misguided. And that's just a boldfaced assumption that would easily rule out answer choices anywhere else on the exam. So why does that just get ignored here?
#help (Added by Admin)
I have no idea how to reply to you guys directly, but I really appreciate that, that was super helpful.
What the hell... couldn't you have just also mined less that year? In 1991 you didn't necessarily have to consume more coal than 1990, you could have just mined less coal than 1990 but consumed the same amount, or even less. So there's absolutely no reason for answer B to be right. You'd have to make the assumption that they mine the exact same amount every year, and that's not an intuitive assumption at all; you'll often get questions wrong for making assumptions way smaller than that.
I picked B in real time, but upon BR I noticed that just because the gossip thing doesn't fulfill journalism's purpose, doesn't mean it doesn't fulfill that particular news media's purpose. I mean, what if that news media's purpose isn't journalism?? But the other AC's are much worse; and A makes an assumption tantamount to the aforementioned assumption in B. In A, you're assuming that the intentions of the news media are nonjournalistc. Their intentions could very well be journalistic and they just failed at doing so because they don't understand journalism's purpose. Either way, shaky question that shoulda been eliminated before scoring.
Am I dumb for thinking that mosquito's communicating means they'd tell the other mosquito's that the carbon dioxide lactic acid cesspool isn't actually human, so the mosquito's would then choose the next source, the arm?? The AC says communicating so I don't think that it's a big assumption to say that communication would somehow involve telling each other of the potential food sources. #help
Hey, does anyone know of a reliable way to simulate the LSAT-flex environment? I already switched to using LSAC's interface to take my practice tests (which is HORRIBLE compared to 7sage's interface) but using the 4 section LSAT proctor video doesn't seem right.
Someone wanna corroborate or take issue with my perception of this? Because I could use some help. The only problem I see with B is that it requires the assumption that the local sales tax will rise due to the new policy. Meanwhile, D also makes an assumption, albeit it's a much smaller one. And that is that the older cars driven by the low income people will be cars older than that 5 year benchmark. Am I missing something more fundamental to this question??? #help
Deadass I think LSAC just messed up for real on #15. That's not the main point. That argument is just a big ass premise supporting his main point, that you shouldn't strengthen copyright law; it's not the main point in an end of itself. If you took that part of the passage out and read that alone, it wouldn't communicate the same thing. That's my take but seriously I take issue with them declaring that to be the main point, since time and time again they make parallel statements yet conclude such an answer would be incorrect.
I panicked with no time and picked B, but I picked E in BR pretty easily. My only question is I didn't really like JY's explanation for why D is wrong. Technically speaking, isn't the truth of that reality something the argument assumes? Then of course by proving that necessary truth to not be true, the argument itself is compromised. But AC E just calls it a "something" and then essentially describes the assumption, whereas AC D calls it an assumption in an end of itself. How are the two not synonyms?? The truth of that statement is something the argument assumes; but, well.... the arguer in the stim doesn't question its validity or existence he outright refutes it. I guess.. that makes sense. I sorta answered my own question but my reasoning is pretty disparate from JY's, so if anyone sees something wrong with my thought process #help cuz I don't wanna run along if JY's explanation was actually the right perception of AC D.
For #27, I get what the LSAC was trying to do to get us to confuse the C4 creation process w/ its role in rubisco turning it into a sugar, but even given that the two processes are separate and we have no information about the former, doesn't C still stand true based off the passage? Because you can infer that either way, C4 plant or not, rubisco's integral role in photosynthesis converts the carbon OR C4 it takes in into sugar, which is a nongas molecule. #help
How do you get to conclude that the hospital executive's hospital is a large non-profit hospital? That seems like a pretty major assumption you have to make, as his hospital could totally be a small one, or one that brings in a large profit margin. #help
Um, am I the only one that thinks they phrased the correct answer incorrectly?? I immediately wanted to choose C, but instead of saying it they just called the two tenants of the argument "the first thing" and "the second thing." But the first thing in the stimulus is the laptops, and the second thing is the higher paying job, which is exactly what the conclusions says. So how the hell were we supposed to know "the first thing" actually meant the second thing, and vice versa? In the video JY even avoids saying it the way the answer choice did, because it's inherently wrong. There's no way to tell which part the answer choice regarded as "the first part" and "the second part". If anyone can point to where they indicate how they indicate what they mean, please show me. #help
I picked B but I feel like it should be recognized here that...B was technically a wrong AC as well. At the very least, it wasn't perfectly in line with the stim, as the stem asked. This isn't an MSS or strength; there's no most in the stim so validity is the standard here. Felicia was the promisor, and the principle said the promisor meeting circumstances beyond their control was sufficient to relieve them of duty. However, circumstances befell Alan in AC B, who was the promisee, not promisor.
By derivative you could say Felicia indirectly experienced circumstances beyond her control and could no longer keep her promise, thus it was ok for her to not do so; however, since direct or indirect is not specified in the stim it leaves a gap that eliminates validity as an answer choice. For example, Felicia's obligation was simply to tutor him, not to meet him somewhere specific. Thus Alan's inability to "attend" is not sufficient, and because the circumstances didn't befall her directly and her obligation was simply to tutor him without any additional specifications, she was still perfectly able to go see Alan in the hospital or wherever he was and tutor him regardless. In a traditional logic sense (even though this trespasses on common sense, but as has been repeated many times common sense has no room in this exam) he could even be unconscious, or his hospital could be 100 miles away, and she'd still have the obligation; technically she's not relieved yet.
I know my reasoning could be shaky though, especially at the end there, so I'm curious to read any retorts.
Ya boi dumb