I think I get it now. Fuck this test.

#help

Can someone help me understand why I'm crazy?

On B I re-arranged it as follows:

Person 1: Suppose there were eight meteorite craters of different ages in a straight-line

Person 2: Ok, go on...

Person 1: There is no known natural cause likely to account for this.

Person 2: "You mean like FUCKING meteorites?"

How can meteorites not explain eight meteorite craters in a row of different ages? Are we saying that meteorites are not natural?

"The first thing an embryo must do...is establish early polarity."

It's definitely after polarity. I don't think the inference is wrong.

Ruhlena I felt that a few days ago and I took some days off. My fear is when I feel like I'm in a rut and continue, I'm developing bad habits.

I used to lift weights and a common piece of advice was "listen to your body."

As concerns the LSAT, it's more like listen to your brain, emotions, etc. When I'm "sore," it tells me I need to take a break before I do more harm than good.

I had to get over the fear of, "If I take time off I won't get the highest score possible." Now it's the opposite.

#15 seems like a big premise to the author's conclusion...

When the distribution for a main point is that fucked up I have no problem questioning what this test is actually designed to test...

#20

I think C is better, the fact that less time is allotted would indicate how influential they are. They more influential the more time allotted. Give how crazy the leaps are in RC I don't think it crazy to say the more influential the more time I would allot.

The fact that some people watch foreign less doesn't mean they have less access, I could just as easily say they are less influential (less in demand).

He rules out C for assumptions but then makes the assumption that time allotted is related to access. I mean not even a dude who is paid to do this for a living can explain this...

#fucktheLSAT

#8

I don't see how you go from need more evidence to determine pervasiveness to that being required exclude.

The passage states that there is more support for one theory, but more evidence is needed to establish just how pervasive the effects were. The evidence isn't to exclude other theories, it was to establish the pervasiveness of one of the three.

God I hate this fucking test.

#6

JY does a pretty shitty job of supporting A. He simply underlines two words twice and says it "seems really good."

The best evidence is in line 36-37 "his writings wonderfully articulate his [social] vision."

His explanation is just lazy, and he fails to show how within the context they articulate the author's attitude. I caution against thinking because a concept appears twice you have evidence of the author's attitude.

Agree, plus JY asks almost incredulously, does he blend auto and fiction? Like he isn't sure, even though it clearly states in the first paragraph the author does....

I mean the fact that the author disagrees with critics classification to saying he values his commitment to social messages is a huge fucking leap that of course JY does not address..

I agree with the other guy, the support for 12 comes from the end of the third paragraph and beginning of the fourth. No idea what he is talking about here...

It's like he's pressed for time and justifies answers with anything he can come up with. Hire more people...

#21

Doesn't it clearly say that "When embryos of different species are at one- or few-cell stage development [after polarity was established], the mechanism they use for development are vastly different."

How does this not support D?

7/8 but fuck this test

#8

I don't understand how he asks "But it is acceptable?" and then refers to acceptable as being to restrictive.

I mean it clearly refers to a tradition. I would have to think that in order to be a tradition there is some level of acceptance...The correct answer then refers to achievements. I mean, if they are achievements, it's safe to say they have received some form of acceptance....

Fuck this test is so stupid.

My issue with 5 E is that I feel I would have a hard time saying that someone mediating could not be considered an indirect role.

12 is such a good example of how (time permitting) you need to read the other answer choices.

Also a good example of how a better answer resides just after a seemingly good answer.

It doesn't, because we know the some can mean 100%.

Thus if there is some overlap, there can be 100% overlap.

We cannot infer that because there is some overlap, there is NOT some overlap.

But the LSAT is a mind-game and not an actual test IMO, and this is an example. Assuming that some implies not some will have you punished on logical reasoning, but on RC in this case apparently it's correct.

The LSAT is fucking stupid.

For 7 I chose B. I think they want me to think it's incorrect because the passage states that the ethical standards were similar, it was the enforcement that was the difference. But if they enforced it more then is it that unreasonable to say that they were able to in turn maintain them? No but the LSAT is retarded.

I think this is one of the numerous instances of the LSAT giving you a shitty correct answer choice, the true test being can you eliminate the even shittier answers. The absurdity of this test becomes more apparent by day. For harder questions, it's increasingly becoming a game of can I determine how they want me to think as opposed to there being any consistent or reasonable pattern.

For 26, do you really have to concede to something to answer the question?

The author takes issue with Drescher's explanation, and says it is answered by Eltis. This does not have to equate to Eltis intentionally answering the question, or agreeing with anything.

In other words, if I read author A and B, and I find A lacking, and in turn use B to make up for A's lack, does that mean B agrees with A? No.

I read it as the author was able to explain a lack of Drescher by way of Eltis. But does this mean Eltis would agree with it? Not necessarily, but the LSAT is retarded so...

Once again, here's how fucking stupid the LSAT is.

If it did in fact impact the entire brain, then how do I know whether the sources of functions are localized?

It could go either way.

JY says how am I going to say they were distinct if it affected the entire brain? Exactly. That's why it's such a shit answer, if it affects the entire brain how does that tell me whether or not the functions are localized or compartmentalized. It affected the entire brain, I can't tell either way.

It impacted the entire brain, and because because they had the same source of control, they were all impaired.

It impacted the entire brain, and because they did not have the same source of control, they were all impaired nonetheless, BECAUSE IT IMPACTED THE ENTIRE BRAIN.

Holy shit.

My issue with C is it says that 1/2 price or less (than half price).

Using JY's example, what if the $8 eggs were 90% off.

Even if they were the most expensive, we don't know the discount and thus we don't know the quantity required to achieve the comparison. It doesn't resolve shit but opens more questions, how much did you buy and at what discount?

The LSAT is fucking stupid.

I'm willing to bet had this question been a lower level of difficulty they would have simply removed C and made B the right answer.

So I re-read it. There's really nothing from preventing my interpretation as "property on which buried objects were found" to mean "[objects] on which [deceased individuals] were found."

It wants me to think by property they mean land, but property could just as readily identify objects. It also wants me to think buried objects isn't referring to deceased individuals although it mostly certainly could.

Fuck the LSAT.

#help

How is 12 not E?

If they ruled that it does not apply, how does that not clearly reflect the fact it was considered? How do you rule something out without considering it lol?

In making their ruling they definitely must have considered the concept of abandonment if they ruled it out. They fact that may have lead to another concept doesn't prevent the abandonment having been considered prior, which is explicit.

So the reason they buried it was not because of abandonment but abandonment wasn't considered for the ruling?

Fuck the LSAT.

I feel like he is saying it is absurd because the definition is not possible, thus the argument contradicts itself.

I agree with the statement below that sometimes they just throw questions together because they've run out of bs.

The most frustrating part of the LSAT is no matter how ridiculous a question is, you will find people saying how obvious it is.

The LSAT could make the correct answer 2+2=5 and you would find people talking about how much it makes sense.

If they were the only one doing it, it would increase the harm.

No one doing it = no harm.

Add one person doing it, increases the harm.

But if other people are doing it too, are we sure it's increasing the harm? If they stop doing it, and other people are, we might say stopping might reduce.

But if other people are doing it too, then are we sure it increases? Perhaps it just maintains the level of harm without increasing it.

How does the fact that other people are doing it negate the harm?

"So they can’t say this is harmful."