I thought E was wrong because even if Mars had the materials, how do we know that they don't have to haul them from a different part of the planet thus making it expensive.

Something that jumped out at me is that the argument draws a conclusion about a PREHISTORIC marine reptile based on a premise regarding MODERN marine reptiles. The correct answer choice consolidates the two by mentioning "In most prehistoric and modern marine reptile species..."

This is how I answered this concern you had when I was going through this question:

In the caterpillar stage the moth feeds on this grass.

From this I think we are supposed to understand that the moths' feeding on this grass is NECESSARY for their survival during caterpillar stage. Therefore, they must eat it in order to survive. So even if the moth had other means of making itself highly unpalatable... they still need to eat this grass during the caterpillar stage on top of the fact that it helps make them unpalatable.

The stimulus doesn't explicitly say the grass is necessary, but I think it is implied. I had the same issue you did in BR.

I would drill logic games until you get -0. Very doable with enough practice. For RC I would just do lots of practice tests

22 tripped me up because "serve the purpose of" seemed too strong... I thought that the transferring of risk was a byproduct and not the main goal...

I guessed my way through most of passage B because I ran out of time. However, it really helped to circle the planets that each passage is talking about to refer back to them quickly. AKA it helped me avoid "mis-matched" AC

For BR.... it helped TREMENDOUSLY to draw out what was happening with conditional logic. The "premise" in the first passage hinted for me to do this. For example:

Aux assumption 1 (Newton's Theory) → explain Mercury's orbit

Aux assumption 2 (other planet's orbit) → explain Mercury's orbit

So when the Necessary condition failed (negative evidence) I pushed the arrow back and saw what Author A was saying.... which premise was the one that failed? WE DON'T KNOW! Anyway, this might be a waste of time but it was the only way I actually understood how to get to the AC for the last question

None of the trap AC resolve the CHANGE OVER TIME question that you need to resolve

This is what I did as well

Conditional chain explanation:

Stim: Well intentioned actions ‑m→ not effective

PSA: not effective → not justified

-------------------------------------------

Conclusion: Well intentioned actions ‑m→ not justified

I felt like the word "discredit" was too strong which is why I did not chose C. In my mind, to discredit an argument as stated by the AC is to say something negative about the argument itself... however the politician is attacking the motivations of the people making the argument. UGH.

I got to E because every other answer is completely out of the scope. I still do not understand a word in this stimulus. Alas.

Therefore, if the kids with extroverted parents still are introverted (just less than the non-adopted kids) then it follows that biology does indeed play a part in explaining their behavior. However, it is also influenced by the environment (extroverted parents) according to Helena.

I thought Arjun was wrong because Yolanda is talking about direct harm (physical vs intellectual) and Arjun jumped to physical through the intellectual. I understand now what the flaw was... i completely missed it under timed testing.

I thought about this a little differently.

A child who tends to be more extroverted can still be introverted as a whole... but can be more sociable than another introverted child who may have not been adopted by extroverted parents.

So are we just assuming this is a binary cut? Not falsified = confirmed. I am pretty sure you never confirm things in science... you just fail to reject?

This really confused me but I ended up choosing D by process of elimination even though I was not too convinced about the assumption that not falsified = confirmed

I might be a little late but I am replying in case it helps someone else.

What you are saying isn't quite correct. You are making a huge assumption that goes directly against the premises given. The argument actually explicitly states that this dichotomy you are referring to does not exist in this argument.

The statisticians are claiming that ppl's set of beliefs are static except when you reject a current belief. This means you cannot add a new belief because in doing so, it would change the set which they state you cannot do.

Rejecting a belief does not necessarily imply accepting a belief (a binary cut as you mention). I understand why you think that it is a binary cut based on real world experience... but the premise explicitly says that your set remains unchanged EXCEPT for when you reject a belief. Therefore acquiring a new belief is out of the question.

If you read AC B you can see this very point played out. It say that the argument"neglects the possibility that even while following the statisticians’ rule (AKA: you must either reject a belief or you keep it)... one might also accept new beliefs when presented with some kinds of evidence." The second part of the AC is a direct contradiction of the first part of the answer choice.

That is why AC B is wrong and was quickly dismissed by JY

You have to pay attention to what the question is asking. AC A is not the central focus of the passage. The author of passage A would probably argue that Passage B reflects the declining trend in historical research that focuses on individual women. But the main topic of discussion in Passage B is the role of gender (women as a whole) in sociopolitical affairs.

I solved by mapping out the arugment:

SDC → + →comp

SDC → - → /comp & benefit

---------------------

SDC --> Benefit

The only way we can get to this conclusion no matter what is if + →comp & benefit

"You might be discovering something about yourself"

KING J.Y. SOLVES PREJUDICE AND RACISM IN ONE LSAT VIDEO <3

The reason I ultimately eliminated B was because it said "local industries" instead of "older local industries" as stated in the premise. Not sure if this logic was correct.

Can someone please explain how to distinguish this NA question from a SA. I did not chose A because it felt like a "trap" as it seems to be a SA #help

Petition to make this a level 5 question.

#9 was disrespectfully hard.

This is not the reason you should eliminate A. The reason A is wrong is because they do not give you a reason as to why he does not pick the sedan (parallel to the reason that the coffee could not have been french roast.)

The conclusion simply states that he will drive the convertible because it fits 4 people with no reasoning as to why he is not driving the sedan. Therefore, you are not required to know anything about the sedan other than what the stimulus tells you and if it parallels the stimulus method of reasoning.

Going by your logic, if a standard sedan fits 4+ people you are making an assumption (which you should never do on the LSAT). The assumption is that Sam's car is a standard sedan that has no damaged seats or something of the sort. This assumption may seem like "common sense" but there is nothing in the stimulus that gives you any information to make this assumption. Hope this helps!

Answering this to help others since it has been quite some time since you posted this.

For his case the answer is simple. The main conclusion is very clearly the first answer based on the support structure that follows it. C is an assumption you are making based on the premises, but it is not what the conclusion is saying.