this is the only drawing i have really enjoyed so far in the explanation videos.

I am not buying into the explanation. i must be wrong. but this is my reasoning:

C is ruled out because the hypothesis was about COSMETIC DUST, its was NOT about volcanic dust.

Granted, D did not talk about temperature. But this cannot be used as an excuse against D. After all, A, B, and E did NOT mention temperature either.

So, correct me please.

thanks for sharing

Proposal: increase speed limit.

Author: objection

Author premise1: increased speed limit leads to decreased safety.

Evidence: increased speed limit leads to increased speed

(here it assumes that increased speed leads to decreased safety in order to connect with the above premise)

Author premise2: increased speed limit leads to increase speed for all drivers

(again, assumes increased speed leads to decreased safety)

A: directly contradicts premise 1,2

B: "uniformity of speeds" more important than low average speed

C: obviously not weaken. increased speed is not necessarily associated with unsafety

D: some violators will continue to be violators. violator used to drive 80 miles/hr (limit 50m/hr) now drive 100 miles/hr (limit 90m/hr). does this necessarily decrease safety? not necessarily . answer does not guarantee weakening.

E: none sense

So B. hard one.

this is a good LSAT question

bubble this up. i am sure the comments make a lot of sense to many people, but i still have no clue why AC C is the correct answer. Any one please help?

believe it or not. I chose b.

Stimulus says the European music is independent of other things. For this reason - function becomes style (no longer does the function exists), it has a strong world influence. In other words, it is this change from function to style that makes the European music globally influential. B supplies a different cause.

style causes global influence

Expansionism partly causes global influence.

Since LSAT assumes the only/exclusive cause in the stimulus (this is what i said), therefore I chose B.

need help to truly understand why B is not right answer.

is it true at least one of this type of question must appear in each test?

#help (Added by Admin)

this question seems unfair to test takers who are unfamiliar with the definitions of referendum.

E was the first to be eliminated. this indicates my lack of crucial skills in addressing this type of questions.

i have to ask myself why i eliminated D in the first place while kept b and c. i did so because "yet" sounded not right to me. but i was wrong not to apply lawgic

brutally analyze my thought process:

A: makes sense. In retrospective, i equate motive = psychological state

B: was ruled out because there was no comparison in the stimulus. It is not about better. It was about "either ..or.."

and I chose A.

A took me a while. but i successfully recognized it as a trap.

then I chose B.... because I applied the negation technique for necessary assumption questions.

if the smokers do not do the damn yoga once a week, will they still be able to succeed?

...who can help me understand why negation technique failed here?

2001-2002 LR questions successfully terrified me 100%. While it is addictive to drilling the questions, it is totally sickening of being fooled around all the time. I know they are trying to fool me, they know I know they are trying to fool me, I know they know I know they are trying to fool me, ... and I got fooled.

I chose D. limit ~= restrict??

#help (added by Admin)

i chose D. how can you assume the relationship between firepits and lamps? there is no evidence showing firepits and lamps are competing goods.

#help (added by Admin)

Why is B none sense??

#help (added by Admin)

I took my cold diagnostic test around late September last year; -10 for each LR. After a few months of study - on and off - my LR score comes down to around -8 each section, though a couple of times with -5 or -3 (got really lucky!) What I found is that my error rate is very high for Level 5 difficulty questions; more than 50-60%. With -6/LR section, what would be the estimated range of final test score outcome? Is it possible to go above 160?

All that is needed for money to disappear is a universal loss of belief.

How to translate it into logic?

I thought Disappear requires loss of belief (needed, necessary), therefore disappear -> loss of belief

Apparently, the relationship is reversal

As always, very much appreciate your timely response! Thanks, Cherry!

Congrats! If I had 169, I would be completely content to use it to apply for some decent schools. A difference of 1 point can really reflect a lot harder test?

any more response to this thread? Still confused about how to correctly translate the last sentence to proper lawgic.

I think what it adds to the complication is that its an advertisement, its not an expert testimonial. Secondly, it indicates "have clearly recognized"... we do not question the premise, therefore one may think "have clearly recognized" = endorsement

However, why does the conclusion have anything to do with "deliberately"? it only speaks about whether its a good plan. A good plan does not require being deliberate or lack of it.

whenever my brain stops functioning for the games, I switch to LR for some hope. Then my brain shuts down for everything.

I believe LSAT makers are ETs.

let me try to refute the correct answer, and argue for AC D:

Argument: Managers should improve productivity. why? because I as boss believe the MOST efficient managers have excellent time management skills. So lets organize a workshop for the middle managers to learn time management skills.

Assumption is training leads to excellent skills which in turn make those middle managers most efficient.

D: Managers already efficient do not need to improve productivity.

AC D, implies that (all, including middle) managers already achieve max productivity, and therefore, no need for them to attend the workshop. there is no room for further improvement.

As a result, D weakens the argument.