same LOL. I feel so dumb, I thought it was craters in general and was just like "this choice just denies both options in solving this dilemma, how could it even be relevant to a strengthening?" I chose E and was really unhappy with it, but at least it attacked the meteorite theory

Yeah, B's problem lies in the tuition aspect as they're baiting us into assuming that tuition = budget when that's not necessarily the case. Furthermore it ignores the need-based aspect, which when combined with the spending on faculty salaries could very easily rise above that related percent

this was such a weird question lmao, like DUH the necessary assumption of an analogy is that the two items are analogous 😭 guessed right in a 50/50 btw B and C but still

The thing that tripped me up about this question is that the stimulus specifies that there's a source of L acid IN THE DIET. I mentally assumed that it was just L acid in general, so reading that it was necessary for other insects, I was like "oh then it has to get it from somewhere else" and chose A, changing it from B. ;_; TL;DR one mistake can lead to a cascade...

this was an RC question that snuck into LR lmao

I completely missed the bone samples ≠ blood samples part of the stimulus and spent like 2 minutes scratching my head and guessed C cuz it improved the experiment LOL

I guessed wrong in a 50/50 like 4 times this section cries

Evaluates are tough in general, and I was scratching my head with this one, but I think the key here is locating the gap between the premises and conclusion. There's not really any connection to the conclusion they're wastes of money, so the correct choice is going to establish whether or not this is the case.

A D & E are all pretty much purely irrelevant from a cost-benefit analysis, leaving us with B and C. B's problem is that it uses the word "manufacture", which separates it from the process of installing the signs (what we're really concerned with) so it makes itself irrelevant to the task at hand. This leaves C, which if it is affirmed with something like 90%~, it could mean that the city is actually saving money in the future by preemptively replacing them, or if denied or with a really low % like 5%, it means that the city is definitely doing something it doesn't need to do.

I was really stumped on this question, then thought "what if this fossil was a kid T rex?" and that made it 100% clear. evaluates feel like crapshoots :/

noticed C's trap after picking it for a few seconds and felt proud about it lol.

this was one of the only questions I got wrong on the section. I chose E for reasons I don't fully remember lol, I think got confused and thought that the humans only getting the rash was the conclusion and then treated this as an RRE, but even on that front it fails.

I was between A and C, and one more reason why I eliminated A is a more classic trap on the LSAT: A merely suggests "discourage", which is a very vague, relative term. Maybe it discouraged other predators, but some still came in addition to the worlves. It's just not enough to explain why the herd grew AND the wolves grew too.

I got confused when I got down to D and E and treated this like a MBT question and got it wrong. careless mistakes...

that's a crazy curve. I got this right but spent 2 minutes on it LOL

misread the except, chose the right answer for the wrong reason, then on BR, noticing this, changed to a wrong answer (C). lol I'm cooked

missed the NA and thus immediately dismissed D as an irrelevant ad hominem style answer choice. chose E cuz it sort of weakened the argument but upon the explanation of why D is it (all handwriting 'analysts' are irresponsible) it totally makes sense

we're talking about entrepreneurs who work at least 18 hours a day though, not people in general, and they do have to have time for leisure to be happy as evidenced by the last sentence. D directly contradicts this.

I got this right really quickly (like ~30 secs) and decided to move on, seeing that the answer choices were really tricky, so I want to share my thought process. I read the prompt as such in three premises of lawgic:

1. Correctly addressed mail ‑m→ arrives in 2 business days

2. arrives in 2 business days --> Correctly addressed mail OR Damaged in transit

3. Most mail does not arrive in 2 business days. (aka the SC for premise 2 as a most arrow)

this has a really obvious inference: that most mail is either not correctly addressed or is damaged in transit, aka SOME mail is not correctly addressed or SOME mail is damaged in transit. one of these must be true, which immediately narrows my inference down to A and D. I eliminated B D and E as options really quickly, as I didn't see how any of those conclusions could be reached from the premises. in particular C was obviously turning the most arrow in premise 1 around which was a huge red flag.

anyways, premise 1 (most CAM is not damaged in transit) makes A a bigger reach, so I selected D (that some mail is not correctly addressed) and moved on with like 90% certainty in my choice.

crazy how merely changing the order of the premises can confuse me so much like this LOL. on my first pass I thought wtf and just kinda guessed C, but on BR it was blindingly obvious when I finally mapped A out

definitely not

I always remember the many ≠ most distinction but I forgot that often is a synonym for it here lol. ticks me off to miss an almost gimme question for as stupid a reason as that, but I suppose at least that means I won't make the same mistake again ¯\(ツ)/¯

imma be real i stared at this stimulus for like a minute and didn't process it at all lmao. didn't help that the stem was really weird. got it right but took me like 3 minutes, and I second guessed myself

really funny to make an argument part question about something that's not a part of the argument

this stimulus was really abstruse (noticing this is a pattern in art passages...), but it helped that A and C were the only semi-plausible answers. A is basically a direct reverse of the first sentence (which is the author's conclusion), while C tries too hard and misses a key component of the argument, that being the reference to objects external to the psyche

good explanation. in addition to this, A also ignores that the stimulus is making a specific reference to current journalism as seen in the first sentence, which is a specific historical claim about how things are now and not how they are in general