I got rid of E because we could try to find the animals a new habitat but that doesn't mean we should move the animals to this new habitat. Just because we find one that would be a new habitat, doesn't mean we can justify moving the animal. E is too weak to justify moving the animals.

I could not figure out what in the world the second half of the passage was talking about. Luckily it wasn't relevant to getting the answer right or I would've been screwed lol

Right! I had the same thought. So ridiculous.

I really thought I had this in the bag till I blind-reviewed lol. What a tough question! This type of question you MUST remember exactly what you are trying to do... aka... breaking the connection between the conclusion and support. It's so easy to get lost in a trickier passage simply trying to understand it and forget what you need to do!

No, as the other person said, it's wasting your precious time. As you practice more and more passages, you'll start to figure out what kinds of questions will be asked and what to really pay attention to in the passage.

idk why but 4 is very tricky and once you know the answer, it's obvious why... but it's just a tricky question and the lsat authors playing their games.

Hey! You have it down for A - the ease of catching the fish was not talked about and we have to remember, we need to connect the conclusion to the support for these question types.

As for D, it does require assumptions, and honestly, D just might be incorrect because the fish do alter their feeding habits in that they move from the bottom of the lake to the top or do the opposite, which is why you could cross D off (that's why I did). But again, I am making an assumption here that the fish are feeding in the coldest waters where they "live," which is why you could cross it off as well because in general, it just requires more "unreasonable" assumptions.

I hope this helps! :)

In all my time of lsat studying... seeing this question multiple times... I can count on myself to get it wrong every time. I don't know what it is, but it is my arch-nemesis. lmao (but dying inside)

So for 10, they are presenting a new "what if" scenario. They are saying, what if at the site, the scientists digging up the site found bones of fully grown female horses and bones of young male horses.

I think you might be misunderstanding what it's saying. It tries to tell us that they (Botai people) kept the female and young male horses alive. We can hesitantly presume they killed or did not keep adult/mature male horses because scientists did not dig up bones of mature male horses at the site, in this scenario they made up for us in question 10.

Finding the bones refers to the scientists digging up the site. In finding the bones of the females and young males at the site, it is saying that the Botai people kept the females and young males with them, not that they necessarily killed them. Hence, you can presume they might've hunted the mature male horses or just didn't keep them, as they did the females and young males.

Then they are asking, what hypothesis does this support?

Well, we can go back to the goat herding part of the passage to figure this out. Past herders of domesticated animals (like goats) kept females and only a few young males alive for meat or milk.

Which is why C is correct because this made-up scenario they gave us is supported that they domesticated horses but used them for meat or milk (maybe another purpose, I don't know and I don't want to make assumptions here). They just didn't ride them.

If they rode them, they would've kept the adult/mature males alive, which is how the author supports Olsen's hypothesis, but this has nothing to do with question 10 honestly because we are given a new situation.

I hope this helps a bit!!

"If you lose your cool in the passage..."

ME losing my cool when I read a complicated passage like this, especially under timed conditions lol

I'm so excited I got this right. I always missed these questions in the past. It still took me a hot second to figure out it was a numbers game, but I was so excited I recognized it.

If you missed this question.... practice, practice, practice! I promise... it will improve, and flaw questions are all about repeated patterns. If I can do it... so can you! <3

Conclusion: We can expect the number of jobs in the region to decrease overall if coal mining is allowed.

Let's look at this statement by itself, asking is it direct support for the conclusion? Meaning, can it stand alone and support the conclusion?....

"Many local businesses depend on the region's natural beauty." So, we can expect the number of jobs in the region to decrease overall if coal mining is allowed.

.... What? No? What does this have to do with anything? How does this help us conclude the number of jobs in the region will decrease overall? It doesn't! Not without assumptions, which we can't make! Thus, it can not stand alone in supporting the conclusion!

SO we need another statement that helps us connect, "Many local businesses depend on the region's natural beauty," to the decrease in jobs overall....

"The heavy industrial activity of coal mining would force most of them to close."

YES. Here we go. Now, we can connect the original statement (many local businesses) to the conclusion!

Hope that all makes sense lol. Pretty much exactly what goes on in my mind when I'm testing!

I got caught up on B, but the statement does not support that the sun has an unusually high abundance of these heavier elements for its age.

If it were the support the statement about the sun specifically, the statement would probably explain why the sun has an unusually high abundance of these heavier elements or how the sun has an unusually high abundance of the elements.

All the statement is doing that we are asked about is supporting the main conclusion.

I don't know what it is about this question or if I was just overly tired, but it went way over my head! I think I had some explanations I was anticipating that didn't match the answer choices... either way, I was totally thrown off by this question.

This question was rough. A was almost so obvious I skipped over it and got lost in the details of the passage.

I'll try to explain this as a student and how I thought through the question.

Basically with B, we don't know what happens when both officers have exemplary records. We don't know if an officer is ONLY eligible for the award if they have an exemplary record and exceeded what could be reasonably expected while saving someone's life that year.

Maybe they could be eligible for the award if they have an exemplary record and did something else, like specifically run into a house with a blue roof that was on fire and save a cat (I don't know, just making something up here as an example).

There could be other ways to receive this award if you have an exemplary record. This isn't specified. We only know one action that could lead to getting this award if you have an exemplary record.

We only know what happens when they don't have an exemplary record. Well, then they aren't even eligible to receive the reward. Which is what A is saying. This is why you can cross out B as incorrect because maybe Penn can actually still get the award!

I hope this helps!

I did the same thing! I didn't even realize it till I watched the video. Maybe this question had some kind of trick to make us do this. Who knows. Or maybe it's 2 am after work and maybe you were as tired as I am.

The first thing I did was cross out B because I thought - oh, that strengthens the study. So ridiculous of me lol

I've seen this question before but it still makes me think. It is tough. I'm drawn to D on the assumption that avoiding heart disease /= good health. But in this question, perhaps that assumption isn't all that unreasonable.

In D, it does attempt to appeal to the conclusion, so this is one reason why D is incorrect. In the conclusion, we discuss avoiding dairy foods just as we do in the support, which is this "appeal" (in my eyes).

In comparing it to A, A does a better job of describing the actual flaw in that avoiding dairy foods may have negative consequences, which could result in not having good health.

We also don't know if avoiding dairy foods helps in avoiding heart disease (okay, maybe you can make this assumption, but it's not directly stated). Perhaps there is something really beneficial in dairy foods that helps avoid heart disease which outweighs the cost of eating fat in dairy foods. Does this help? I don't know. But for me, it did.

Still, it's really tough though. lol

Most of the time, I feel like you can get away with not using lawgic. But this is not one of those questions...

I can't believe I got this question right. I usually miss ones like these. Slow improvement!

Ah see but we can't make that assumption! Unless it's stated, we can't assume group B wasn't getting a nutritious breakfast (buying it on their own before work, for example). If A is not true, our entire study is wrecked, and the conclusion is not supported.

Comparing it to C, which is the main trap here, they don't need to be equally productive to compare them. Say, what if group B was originally more productive than A. Then A's productivity went up after receiving the nutritious breakfast and B's productivity stayed as it was. We can still study this and compare it. BUT answer choice A still needs to be true and present that group B wasn't getting a nutritious breakfast. The study is wrecked if this isn't true and present.

Or what if they were just slightly different in productivity, for example, by a mere few percentages? They are not equally productive, but it's still a very small difference. You could still study this and compare it.

I hope this makes sense and helps a little bit!

As soon as he said in the beginning B isn't saying what you think it might be saying (and it's not), I understood where I went wrong (once again missing questions because I don't read carefully enough).

This was such a tough question, not only because of the really complex passage, but because A is usually not the right answer to flaw questions. Even if you kinda understood the passage and made it to A, I still had such a hard time picking it because it went against my experience with answer choices.

I also did the same thing lol

The curve on this question is crazy.