if 29% of students living in W take night classes, 71% of them don't. The other 29% of students who don't take night classes (because there has to be 100% of students who don't), must live in P. So if 29% of students living in P don't take night classes, 71% of them must. and the only reason this works is because we know all students at the school live in these two dorms.

I'm doodoo crap at math this is just how I answered the Q lmao

Q21- I'm just confused how we were supposed to assume that the symbol they used for sheep wasn't assigned for a specific reason. The passage doesn't discuss that. I never read the word "abstract" and think it means "random" or "without meaning"... I understand what the lsat writers were getting at with that AC but it's a bit of a reach in my opinion

just cause one thing is especially dangerous (ms in your scenario) doesn't mean another thing isn't. but also this AC would require assumptions & necessary assumptions shouldn't require more assumptions

idkkkk this question seems kinda shaky. I was looking for an answer choice that said something like "mountain sickness isn't usually treated at it's onset," like maybe you can treat it later on. Then, the treatments could be the same- the only difference being how quickly oms and es need to be treated - and the argument wouldn't fall apart.

"so there's like three people out there that thought they could work as a corporate lawyer and still be able to see their friends.. and have a family... so they're naïve" lollllllll

don't we have to make the assumption then that the downtown workers live downtown?? worded weirdly

whack

I was between D and A. The reason I didn't choose A is because, even if the snowfall refreezes, wouldn't it just melt again because of the increased temperature? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But, I didn't realize until blind review that D says LOWERING the temperature needed to freeze. If it said raising the temp, I think it would've been a better answer than A.

I guess because you can't assume that the argument is making a certain assumption. the correct ac has to be an assumption that the argument is indisputably making

Some of these questions are so ridiculous man

Right?!!

dumb q

soooo, we were just supposed to know or assume that the polarity stayed reversed for however long after the extinction? I chose E because I figured the mass extinction could have happened before the impact. All the stimulus says is that polarity was reversed AT THE TIME of the extinction. Maybe I'm just dumb

#help (added by Admin)

bruh

I'm just wondering if anyone had a similar thought process to me. I originally chose B mostly because I didn't think any of the other answers made sense, but also because "not significantly less expensive" could mean that they're more expensive, which would support the idea that rich people in bigger houses chose them to show their wealth.

However, during BR, I chose C, because I made the assumption that it would cost more to fill a house with narrower floorboards, so if bigger houses with more rooms chose the narrow boards, it would cost significantly more than filling a small house with wider boards (the cheaper option), which would show the big house owners' wealth. Looking back, I realize how careful you have to be about not making assumptions about the answer choices.

LOL you're not alone.

No, it's not irrelevant. The premise doesn't explain the conclusion without the assumption that kids get sick more often. Say that a common diet for both adults and kids is a sandwich made with mustard, ham, and cheese. After they eat it, the adults and the kids get sick exactly the same amount of times. Since, say, the mustard is the most distinctive flavor, the adults will attribute their sickness to the mustard. Because the kids have an acute sense of taste and the mustard is the most distinctive, they'll also attribute the sickness to the mustard. It doesn't matter only that the kids have a more acute sense of taste, because they'll attribute the sickness to the same food. The premise only explains the conclusion that kids develop more aversions to foods if they get sick more often.

Dang. I thought of this completely differently. I figured the threshold wasn't high enough, so the town didn't want to raise the threshold so that people would inevitably cross it and the town would make more money. I now see why that is irrelevant to discouraging conservation, and a lower threshold would encourage conservation. Idk why this one was so confusing for me.

Same. That's why I was confused. Usually the ACs try to trick you into making assumptions like that, and they're usually wrong, so it's throwing me for a loop that in this case it's correct. I guess it's a leap that you can make when there are no better ACs?

This question really points out how much attention to detail you have to pay to the stimuli. I totally missed the transition of discussion from "stone" to "monument" and was confused about all of the answer choices.