I used to do this because they take along time, but I've realized that they compensate for this and normally the questions are (cookie cutter) meaning they are every similar to other PF questions and the answers can be prephased

Another thing with D. that helped me eliminate it (unsure if this is valid reasoning)

Its saying that if Wilsons course is upper then all (NEW) courses offered next year will have prerequisites.

OK the thing is we have no idea if there HAS to be a new course next year approved next year. IF there has to be at least 1 new course approved next year then yes, but so far based on what we know this doesn't need to be true.

(lets say that if is saying NEW course)

Was down to A and C

Eliminated A for the exact same reason JY said. My thought process was "oh but this doesn't talk about the warning"

However look at his explanation for C it makes perfect sense why it's not right. C doesn't tackle the main issue of either of our conclusions - don't cite / issue warning. Rather it just focuses on the issue of not knowing

D. Is right because if you are well designed (WD) then we know you can't be uncomfortable according to our stimulus meaning you are comfortable. And also according to our stimulus if you are comfortable then you have a spacious interior.

I just took the Jan test and they didn't let you go in with anything except your ID, they provide pencils and the paper. You could leave snacks in ur bag in the lockers outside for break. But I would recommend for you to stop using the ruler and diff color pens if you do. Practice as how you will be in the test that day (u don't want to feel out of your comfort zone)

Hey Chefmm,

So for conditional statements never take the sufficient condition as the ONLY way a necessary condition can happen. Let me explain via you're example.

If she fosters a love of learning -> earns respect

/earns respect -> /foster a love of learning

All we know here is that hey if she doesn't earn respect she can't foster a love of learning. WHY? because if she did foster of a love of learning that would mean she earned respect.

Yes you are right you can NOT foster love of learning and still earn respect. WHY because there could be other sufficient conditions for making earning respect.

Now don't ASSUME something not stated. If they want to say two conditions always happen together they will say it. If a statement says

IF and Only if she fosters a love will she earn respect = then yes both will always happen together.

If they say other things like "otherwise" then the same applies they always happen together.

(I would get an easier example and always use that if you're confused, this scenario is pretty tricky to bring up and remember when studying or doing a question) JY has a lesson where he gives some examples of conditional statements which could help you.

Also if you haven't studied LG there's some lessons in there which could help you better grasp conditionals, (when conditional rules trigger and fall away)

A sufficient condition just lets us know something happens.

But it could be very likely that a sufficient condition doesn't happen and that necessary condition still occurs

B. Just because the opposition is rarely willing to comprise doesn't mean that thus they will not comprise and thus push back into not acting positively.

OK so we have a subset of cancers that are linked to the pollutants big steel companies produce. MOST cancers are incurable and we need to prevent them. Clearly the only way we can seriously prevent cancers is by halting these big steel companies and the pollutants they produce.

I hope you see the error here, most of these cancers that are incurable might be caused by something else other than pollutants and thus can be significantly reduced by another form.

Some people are confused with "how" Q7 Answr B works so I'll explain based on some info I got online. So based on JY explanation its clear that BASED on the passage we need permeable rock at 300 m or deeper and it needs to be surrounded by impermeable rock. Thus this is clearly the answer.

But if you're wondering "but how can u reach preamble rock if you have (impermeable rock) on top. So Impermeable rock is just a layer of earth which doesn't allow fluids like oil , gas , (waste in our case) to flow through them easily. We can still reach them with drills and after we do and get to this parable rock dump our waste. So pretty much for this waste method we want like a square lets say where you have a permeable layer and its surrounded by impermeable layers so when you dumb the waste it doesn't leak out.

If you are still studying for the LSAT (and for future users) always read a (take for granted) as "assumes" it will help you 100000% percent.

Picked D initially then in BR realized the error I made and picked D. Very commonly flaw causation questions will be wrong because the author says "hey X(Egypt pyramids) caused Z(Mexico pyramids) ", without taking into account Y could've caused Both. This argument eliminates this possibility very hidden though by saying that (Z Mexico ) didn't have contact with anyone else who had these pyramids. SO you can't say that Y caused both because hey Mexico was isolated and never met another culture with pyramids.

I was bugging out this entry question like "where is the flaw" this is fine. Was rethinking all my lsat studying smh

So studies have concluded that cutting people off while talking is a signal of aggression. They look at how other people RESPOND to the cutting off in order to derive the conclusions as to what the intent of the person was. But any response (smile, eyes closed) even no response can be interpreted as a reaction to this (signal of aggression). Therefore....

We are attacking the argument and the methodology which they have used, we aren't saying that cutting people off isn't a signal of aggression just that your study is bogus.

OK so the monkeys who show love to their friend monkeys, will receive protection from their friends compared to the anti social monkeys who don't show love.

This shows that love plays the same role in monkeys than in humans. OK analogy

Premise: Since humans will protect those who they love.

Um this isn't the same, the monkeys defend people who love them vs the humans who defend people the love. For you conclusion to stand you need to assume that monkeys also work this way.

B. Yes some monkeys must also love the monkeys they defend if not then the human and monkey analogy doesn't exist.

Got this question down to A and C which I believe are the best AC. Ended up going with A even though I figured it was wrong.

Looking at JY explanation on A it can be eliminated with that view that it doesn't really support at all.

C just seems like its the best of the worst answer choices.

Kinda implying that his bad acts were attributed to him from these enemy writers who read about them.

Hey Baloch,

So I myself and would like to think everyone struggle with abstract answer choices, anyway I wanted to give you some advice that has been working for me. When you come across these answer choices before eliminating try to understand what it is really saying step by step, all it is is referential phrasing to make it harder to spot.

D. Concludes that other peoples argument is false, on the basis (because) of a faulty assumption they took as support for their claim

Other peoples argument that violent TV can sometimes cause Violence

Other people took TV ads as automatically affecting buying habits but its actually that these TV ads are designed to affect buying habits.

Hey LSATdemon,

So this kinda sounds like the flaw of the author taking some evidence against the position as if it completely invalidates the other peoples argument.

Hi Toni, I also had problem deciding between B and D (recent educational development also threw me off).

Ok but let's eliminate B and show you why its actually wrong.

So B is saying Schools cannot emphasize the teaching of computer skills without neglecting other skills.

Let's take this at face value: its saying that if your emphasizing computer skills then you neglect other skills, this is too strong and actually isn't what our stimulus is saying.

Our stimulus actually just says that some schools that emphasized computer spent more time with computer and less with other basic skills, but what if this is just because those schools decided to spend 7 hours of the day studying computers and the other 1 hour on the other skills. There's a possibility that you can still emphasize computer skills and not have to neglect other skills.

Ok so normally you want to look for conclusion indicators, but here's a tip which is sorta what JY mentions. These MC questions aren't very common since their on the easier spectrum of questions (not to say they can't be hard), so normally they try to compensate and put a conclusion indicator towards the end and a sub conclusion. The key is really to read the argument carefully, as you do this it should be evident what is supporting what.

Another tip: If you think there is two conclusion but unsure which one is the main use one as the support for the other and vice versa.

So a cookie cutter explanation for C.

(The box office success of a film does not depend on its viewers finding it funny, frightening, or moving)

Ok so even if the box office success did depend on its viewers finding it FFM, the ticket sales don't allow us to measure how they responded to the film.

So we can't say that the box office success/ticket sales, don't depend on you laughing so much that you decided to rewatch it 30 times. Maybe that's why you did rewatch it so many time, the thing that we care about is measuring how you responded to it and ticket sales/financial success are just numbers which don't let us see how you responded to it.

Ok I keep reading comments and see that people erroneously confuse the conclusion.

Our arguments conclusion isn't that younger people are more like to share financial information over the phone than compared to older people.

The conclusion is subtle but different: People are more willing when they are younger than when they are older to reveal personal financial information to strangers over the telephone.

Meaning that when you're 18 you're more likely to share personal financial information over the phone than when you turn 60.

The problem with this is that the argument didn't show us what those people surveyed would've answered when they were say 18.

Extra: From what I know this should've been a longitude study meaning that the same participants are asked the same questions throughout many years - when they turn 18,25,35,55,65- then we would be able to conclude depending on our data that, hey look people are more willing to share their personal finance info when they are younger compared to older.

So actually the "at least partially altruistic" is parallel to a "some" relationship

I had similar reasoning and chose B.

However, while B is descriptively right, the author never said "hey use sand capped pits instead".

The conclusion is "your approach would damage commercial fishing"

WHY? well because look X amount of people have signed this petition saying use sand capped pits instead. SO WHAT? are those people even qualified.

Since he's not saying use sand capped pits there's no need to argue for that, he's saying your approach will damage fishing. So for this to be fixed you establish that your premise (x amount of people) know what they're talking about.

Its just not the main gap in the argument.

Hope this helps

Burt Reynolds wrote a good explanation below.