For real :( Suggested time was 45 sec. and it took me 45 sec. alone to read the stimulus like pleaseee
I am wondering this exact same thing. Perhaps hypotheses are based on study and claims are based on fact.
Getting it right before the suggested time :) YOU will improve as you drill! Also would recommend tapping the timer at the start of each question so you cannot see how much time has elapsed, sometimes the timer just haunts you.
I struggled with this question and thought C could also be right. Try negating answer choice D --> "No film from the earliest years of Hollywood currently exist in their original film". This negated would make the argument completely false, because if no Hollywood movies are in their original form, then all of them have been preserved.
I originally chose E and then switched it to A during blind review. I usually stick with my original answer unless I find something directly in the stimulus to change my answer. I hope this helps anyone who has been switching their answers last minute to the wrong one.
I was debating between A and C but went with C because I felt it addressed the reason as to why the mosaics should be left there. While I understand that all information is known about the mosaics, it is uncertain if future archaeologists will have access to the information or not (clearly stated in stimulus). I also just thought A was a mere truth claim that failed to justify WHY the mosaics should have been kept. Could someone possibly explain to me why A is correct and C is wrong? Perhaps C is wrong because it simply repeats a premise and adds no additional justification.
Yes! I found this question to be fairly straight forward, whereas others I have two to three promising answers choices to choose from.
I have been doing this too. I would recommend staying with your original answer unless you find explicit evidence in the stimulus that makes you change your answer. You also do not want to waste too much time debating if you will switch an answer, instead, stick with what you have and move on to the easier questions. I also feel worse when I switch an answer and get it wrong rather than just getting the question wrong.
I was also initially confused by answer choices A and B. I think the key difference between the two answer choices is the quantifier present in answer choice A. In A, the quantifier is 'many' and is ambiguous, so it therefore assumes that if victims of the supposed Ebola virus experienced 'many' symptoms other than hiccups, it could perhaps not be Ebola, which weakens the argument that Ebola was the Athenian epidemic.
For answer B, it only regards hiccups as a symptom, which some victims of Ebola do not experience. This could be the case because not everyone experiences a specific symptom of any given virus. Therefore B is a more plausible answer choice, because it gives the potential that Ebola still could have been the cause of the Athenian epidemic.
So most of the time if the LSAT uses the language 'evidence against' in a question stem, it means what argument or claim contradicts the original stimulus?
I also chose (A) immediately but after reading (E), I changed my answer to (E). (A) merely supports the premise of the argument, whereas E explains exactly who is less likely to develop allergies, due to their exposure as an infant.
I have had this problem too. I would say to not focus on time right now, as it is more about your understanding of concepts and comprehending the stimulus. I would recommend you keep asking yourself 'What answer choice makes this argument better?' and 'What answer choice represents the causal relationship?'. While these might seem obvious, there is only one answer choice that represents the correct causal relationship (HeavyMetals promotes Resistance of Antibiotics) HM --> RA. I have also found that writing these out helps too.
I really struggled with WRE questions prior to this lesson, but now I think I am starting to get it. I think what is helpful to me is to think of the 'weakens' question as something that supports the premises and provides an alternative conclusion (which may not always mean the complete opposite of the original conclusion). I then eliminate any answer choices that support the original conclusion, and then make sure the remaining answer choices address/support the premises.
I agree that C is the most plausible answer choice, however, wouldn't an actor possess a copy of Hamlet? Or perhaps maybe not, and that is merely a weak assumption.
I am unsure which option is better to use for the test as a whole. However, answer choice C is incorrect because it does NOT explain the dietary difference between those who have reduced their red meat consumption and those that have reduced their red meat consumption. Instead, answer choice C draws a mere comparable relationship between those who reduced their red meat consumption and those who have not reduced their red meat consumption.
I initially fell for answer C, then changed it to answer D because unlike C, it notes the discrepancy AND provides a plausible explanation for the discrepancy of fat intake between the two groups. What helps me is to first try and find the causal relationship in the stimulus. Then, eliminate answer choices that do not address the relationship or act to solve it, which C fails to properly address the discrepancy and fails to offer an explanation.
You are correct by the meaning of 'few', which constitutes at least one (technically two since it is plural) but less than half. When the term 'fewer than half' is used it means not most (less than 50%), so yes it is possible and true that 0 is less than half. However, I do not think there are many cases where the use of 'fewer than half' is intended to mean 0.
For #10, I am assuming that because Ray first offered Charles to purchase marijuana, that constitutes the high probability that there could indeed be marijuana in the car. However, what if Charles is the exception to the rule, and truly believed the marijuana did not exist in the car? Therefore, Charles should not be charged because he did not 'knowingly' bring these substances in to the US. I guess I think the former of my arguments is less valid, and instead just assumes that Charles knew, when he could have simply been unaware of the marijuana. Did anyone else also struggle with this answer?
Hello,
I am a bit lost on how frequent I should be taking PTs. I took a diagnostic test a while back, but haven't taken one since as I am still working on the LR lessons. I have heard a lot of mixed advice on how often to take PTs, so I guess I am just wondering how often you all take PTs. Should I take a PT 2-3 times a week once I am finished with my LR lessons? Or should I begin taking them now? I also plan to take the Aug. test.
I enjoy these 'motivation breaks' and hope you place more in the LR core curriculum.