I would say it's less of a sub-conclusion because it doesn't really lend support to the conclusion, nor receive support from another premise (as the first sentence is really just contextual info).

Hey there,

B is correct when you think about this stimulus with sort of a mathematical lens. Anytime percentages are mentioned in a stimulus we should immediately be wary and consider the assumptions the test writers want us to make.

B gives us an AC that sort of alleviates the paradox in the stimulus. It says people generally eat more when they're older, meaning that increased food intake=more fat consumption, but also that because the overall amount of food being eaten is increasing, the percentage stays the same.

To illustrate, let's say this fat percentage is 25% before increased food intake. You may be eating less, but because of this, fat takes up a greater portion of the percentage. Upon eating more, it still remains 25% despite increased fat consumption because, perhaps, you are eating other foods that balance out this increased amount of fat intake. In other words, the trick here is understanding that an increase in numbers (in this case, increased fat consumption) is not equivalent to an increase in percentage (greater percentage of fat).

On the other hand, D is wrong because we simply have to make too many assumptions for it to be true. We have to assume that 'varied food' means foods with fat so that the first premise is true, and that the phrase 'as they become older' applies specifically to these adults (how do we know that this AC isn't referring to them as children?). Overall, B requires less assumptions.

I ultimately eliminated C because it used the word 'many', which could be interpreted as either a lot of predators or just a few. I chose to interpret it as the latter, and consequently I felt like it was too much of jump to assume that the few predators that perceive color/pattern differently are the same ones that prey upon the species with b&w coloration.

Does anyone have any insight into why this reasoning would be wrong in this circumstance?

#help

The conclusion of the argument is "The best way to increase the blood supply in the city of Pulaski is to encourage more donations by people who are regular blood donors."

So why is E correct, then, when it states 'almost all blood donors are already giving blood?' Doesn't this AC leave open the possibility of the small proportion of regular blood donors not already maxed out being able to donate blood, thereby increasing the blood supply (even if it's by a tiny bit)? #help

I've completed/foolproofed about 15 LG sections. I'm aiming to drill the entire 'bundle' (LG PT 1-35) along with LG's from the PT's I take. Although I've seen gradual improvements from my review, I don't believe 15 is enough.

From what I've heard, the more logic games you can be exposed to, the better. Like any part of the LSAT, the games, and the rules within them, are repetitive; the more games you see, the more you'll be able to anticipate various assumptions being made--even on more difficult ones.

I think it's additionally important to avoid rushing through foolproofing. As has been reiterated again and again, review is the most fundamental part of improvement, especially if you're trying to go -0. Try to consider why it is that you dislike foolproofing; if it seems mundane, come up with a solution to combat that. Maybe try to complete the individual game under target time, or create sets of all the games that are the hardest (4/5 stars) or that you have the most trouble with.

@samuelhirsch328 @laineymariehoffman868 @meaganwilliams948023 @samuelhirsch328 @annaemurphy279421 Thanks all! Definitely feel more so inspired and relieved that many of us are in the same boat.

I work 40 hrs/week in the service industry so it can be difficult to stay on top of studying, but I plan on prolonging my study schedule until mid-summer (already been on and off for about a year).

@cnguyen2195719 Thanks so much for the thorough response, it's a tremendous help!

I’m interested!