Can someone explain question 9 more in depth? What actually makes E correct and D incorrect? Minor volcanoes are shown to have "no discernable effect" on temperature while major volcanoes DO have an effect.

It just seems like there is no real reason to prefer D over E. They both reach the same point relative to the context around it.

I chose D, but switched to E on blind review.

Can someone explain how they determined that the last sentence is a conclusion and the first is only a major premise? J.Y. kinda just said they were what they were without explaining why and I can't create the link in my mind.

So disappointing that J.Y. doesn't even bother to analyze B, C. or E. Hopefully I can find an explanation somewhere else

4 A answers in a row is a little much man.

3 A's in a row man I'm getting meta psyched out. Stuck to A though because I noticed the two separate events in E. Getting better slowly

Got spooked by the last question also being A, but I stuck to my guns and got this right. Still very shaky on the reasoning and the videos don't help much. Anyone willing to explain this?

UGH. It felt too easy for A to be right, and I thought it was way too close to a principle type answer so I switched to D. I knew D didn't rise to the level of reasonable expectation, but nowhere in A did it establish that she had a reasonable expectation either and that threw me off. Now I see that this question type is just asking in relation to the conclusion drawn in the stimulus. I keep confusing the question types. Any advice?

Got this right at target time, but that blind review was painful. Really hard to distinguish between B and E. In my mind they both work for the prompt. Is it E because its a tighter fit? I thought that wasn't something that mattered for this type of question.

Why do we care about the opinions of low wattage users? You just say we do, but don't explain why or investigate why their opinion would matter. The A.C. is only providing their opinion; it is not making any comment on the actual effectiveness. There's always been a distinction between reality and someone's opinion on LSAT A.C.'s. Why end that for this Q?

I hate questions like this where it just does not match reality at all and we're still supposed to make "reasonable" assumptions based on the imaginary world of the test writer's mind. Just ridiculous

Question seemed really easy to me. However, I couldn't quite explain to myself why the others were wrong. I just knew that B supported the argument really well. Will there ever be questions where an answer like B is not the strongest support?

Setting the standard for art does NOT mean anticipating later artists. That is incredibly lazy by LSAC to conflate the two. There are miles of difference between being able to predict what art will look like and predicting what artists will look like. #6 needs a much clearer explanation because that is absolutely not supported by the passage.

There's no indication that they listen to the consultants.

I just really do not understand how this question is labeled a 1/5 difficulty?? This was more difficult for me than the 5/5 I just did. Every answer here had nothing to do with the stimulus. A does nothing to improve or disprove the stimulus. We are told nothing about how the self-defense system has developed in young children. Therefore we cannot assume that it makes them better at catching. What if it overwhelms them, what if it makes them worse?

Why is the target time for a 5/5 difficulty question 1 minute 12 seconds lol? That's just not happening.

This is probably going to fall into LSAC being covered by no "reasonable" person (other than me I guess) thinking this, but I definitely took Pat's trip to Walnut Lane as meaning that the shop was on both Walnut Lane and Main Street. I mean, why not. There are definitely shops that fall between two streets. That would make B correct. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced this question is just poorly written. Did they just forget about stores on the corner or stores that have a front on one street and another entrance on a different street?

What? Why is everything already crossed out when he gets to the questions? How am I supposed to follow this????? #help

Explanation for #22 is extremely poor. The passage specifically does not mention what glass techniques were used in the 19th century. It mentions what happened BEFORE, something that happened later, and what happens today. Why do we assume later means 19th century? I can't handle these "the answer is correct because it is correct" explanations.

The "very little" he knew could very well have been that the brakes were defective. Irresponsible for LSAC to leave that window open

How are we supposed to know that property law is part of common law?

A and D both say it supports the ethicists’s view but you only marked that part as wrong for A???

Funny. I chose E and was deciding between A and E in Blind review. Color my surprise when, after committing to E, it showed that only 2% of people picked A. Phew. I eliminated B and D quite early, but was still having trouble eliminating A in B.R. even though I eventually was able to reason it out. Any tips on how to confidently exclude an answer choice like A that it seems most others can just write off and move on from?

I've gotten every Flaw question right, but I feel more unsure on these and use P.O.E. more than on other questions. Any tips on finding confidence in the right answer?

I got this right, but I’m really struggling with the assumption that a preserving a unique way of life is a social issue. Especially because the “unique way of life” was just a job. That’s a unique economic way of life. But there’s no indication that it’s a unique social way of life. Why do we assume that the business of selling peaches is a social issue?

This is such a scummy setup by LSAC. Hiding the hyphen at the end of a line is so stupid.