Why are supposed to assume that not having an advantage in the community means that they were not advantaged at all?#help

There is an assumption made in answer B - "cause accidents" needs to be understood as causing others to be involved in accidents. Causing an accident does not intrinsically mean causing damage to others, it could simply refer to the sports car driver themself.

I did not select answer C because it does not mention the factor of one item being more available than the other. Why is this not an issue?#help

I'm with you.

I would say that the administrator reapplied the phrase. The translation remained the same it was just used to include funding for the new technologies. #help

I agree! I would definitely contend this on an LSAT if I got it wrong.

So I was under the assumption that the word Consequences means an actual outcome in real life as a result of something. Answer B takes on the more infrequently used translation - a result.

It could be I'm being too much of a perfectionist. I should try to document what my struggles are...and have a beer.

In answer B, the word language is used to include both forms of language when we know they each develop in the same time frame, albeit in a different way.

Why are we assuming the damaged mail makes up such a small minority? Maybe all mail that arrived three or more days later was damaged?

#help (Added by Admin)

#help For all we know, in 1991 they could have mined 50 and consumed 10 leaving over 40. In 1990 they could have mined 60 and consumed 10 leaving over 50. In this scenario, there is less in the year 1991 but they still mined more than what they consumed. I don't get this one.

I still don't get Answer B for this exact reason.

I agree with you. However, it says "the jawed fishes then developed" - it does not say the jaws developed or the fish developed jaws. It states that this particular fish that we are discussing (the one that now has jaws) developed something additional.

I selected answer D. I understand that the word "retain" implies keeping something that was already present, but the word "developed" implies change which would imply that what followed this "development" was not already present, and if no change occurred, saying that these fishes "developed along two main lines" is false! This one kinda threw me off. #help

I selected answer D. I understand that the word "retain" implies keeping something that was already present, but the word "developed" implies change which would imply that what followed this "development" was not already present. This one kinda threw me off.

I literally researched it after this quiz. Not so simple that plankton are not fish. Officially jellyfish are considered plankton. Science lesson over. But bad call on the writers of this question for using content that is factually uncertain.

This was just another case of me getting tripped up by a conclusion indicator - "conclude". JD explained in the last quiz that since the stimulus used the word "therefore" we can assume that the conclusion is what follows. But in this stimulus it literally uses the word "conclude". So my conclusion (pun intended) is that conclusion indicators are never a guarantee to indicate the main conclusion. Someone tell me if I am wrong.

I agree with you. JD did say that this is not a great question, but I was still very frustrated with the result. I can usually spot the conclusion in Blind Review but not this time. I was under the impression that words introducing conclusions are not always the main conclusion but can often be a major premise/sub conclusion.

At least you know you won't be seeing this on LSAT lol. I had the same reaction btw.

I had the exact same reaction. For a test that is based on inferences and implications, this question pissed me off. More hospitals equaling fewer fatalities is a huge assumption to make in general, especially on the LSAT.

The stimulus states that "fewer of these books are being published". If answer B is true that the quality of books has gone down, would that not cause all categories of books to be published less as well? It appears the answer does not give a reason for the specific category of books with intrinsic value. #help

I got the correct answer to this question. However, there appears to be an incorrect assumption in the answer. The fact that there was a decline in income does not directly connect to the drop in meal sales. Is this not a typical assumption the LSAT tricks us into making?#help

I understand that Weakening Arguments require one to attack the supports, but why is attacking the premise not weakening the argument as well?

#help (Added by Admin)