Why does it cost me $16.78 to transfer to the new site when you're not transfering my actual data??? I'm already paying for your subscription.

Didn't make the connection that a Real Danger means that the public has a Well Founded Fear. If you can make that connection, the conditional falls into place.

For Q24, the issue I had was that the question asks "What makes it difficult for the lawyer to determine whether the client qualifies to enter an uplift fee agreement (UFA)."

C) To my understanding, points to an difficulty that a lawyer has deciding whether to take on a client on an UFA. It's not about whether or not the client "qualifies" for an UFA. But how does "not knowing the final costs" influence whether or not the client is qualified for UFA. Encountering a complex case with potentially higher costs seems like something that a lawyer would need to decide whether or not to sign this client, it would be a "difficulty for the lawyer when deciding to sign a UFA".

The previous paragraph states that the criteria are: 1. Last resort, 2. Financially unable to pay if damages not awarded. As well as in the following paragraph it says that lawyers are "forced to investigate financial circumstances of the potential client".

Doesn't this mean that if a client refused to disclose their financial situation, a lawyer cannot decide whether or not this client falls under the requirements for an UFA? Which is what the question is asking, "what makes it hard to determine that a client qualifies for UFA".

Can anyone help explain why C) answers the question better than B)? Yes I understand that C is directly quoted from the passage, but I don't think it answers the question.

Tsk Tsk, I read increased car traffic as in increased congestion (traffic jams)

This is 7 years later and hopefully you've already graduated law school. But this might help others that stumble upon this question.

A can be eliminated because it's explanatory of a given premise, that no footprint was found. Adding A to the stim still doesn't exclude a potential 3rd person that wasn't H and J. Additionally, a restated premise will never be the answer to a Necessary Assumption question, because if it was then there would be no gap.

Imagine if E is the correct answer. We know the fingerprints are not H's, and now they aren't S's, so who's the murderer? We need to help the argument conclude the murderer is S, and not actually try to find out who it is.

C is necessary because it rules out the possibility of a 3rd person, leaving it to only 2 suspects. Now given the premise we can eliminate H, the only possible person is now the other, S. So therefore that helps the argument that S must be the murderer.

Exactly because sound quality of a recording is NOT the same as the misquotes and half-truths, it is the correct answer. Because in the stim, the imitation of K is NOT the same as the imitation of K's imitation. Therefore the flaw is the same.

For example if R was "Monalisa" and K replicated it as the "Starry Night", our painting that perfectly replicates the "Starry Night" is no where similar to "Monalisa". Therefore as the stim say "Your reproduction of "Starry Night" is not a good replication of "Monalisa". But our goal was NEVER to replicate the "Monalisa" in the first place. It's comparing apples to oranges.

That's how it is analogous to A). Whether or not George speaks the truth is NOT related to whether or not we have good recording quality. It's again comparing apples to oranges.

Thanks Kevin for pointing this out! But I'd still argue that it's man-made instead of protecting existing natural because in their 2nd paragraph they say:

While a visit to Montezuma NWR can transport you deep into nature, it is important to know that much of the refuge is human-made and therefore continuously monitored and managed.

Sorry, I get that I probably could've when through POE to get the correct answer with this question. If this was on the real test I would probably try to contest and argue hard LOL :D and fail of course.

I liked B but crossed it out because I was nitpicky that preserving NATURAL habitat =/= animal refuge. I thought that animal refuge = shelter, or like a zoo. Where it is NOT NATURAL when someone comes and builds a refuge. Isn't preservation of a a natural habitat something like policies to ban XXX at the location, or making sure the river flowing through is not polluted, having more poacher patrols etc. etc.

I think new Lsats wouldn't have this problem lol.

Someone let me know if this is right or not, because JY's explanation didn't really make sense to me. I got it right but took way too long, and am still questioning my reasoning.

I eliminated B on the grounds that it seemed like a restatement of the premise. The premise gives a hypo with 2 OR factors:

1. too quickly

2. poor organization.

This to me means that either one could lead to confusion.

In NA questions there's always a gap between main assumption and conclusion, which means you can never justify the gap by restating the premise(otherwise there would be no gap).

I chose A because it feels like being exposed to too many stories is an example of being too quickly on a each story. For example, during a news anchor if I'm exposed to 100 stories vs. 10 then there definitely is a difference in the time allocated for each story.

Now one may ask don't they both "restate the premise"? Yes! However if you look at the argument, the conclusion is that Poor Organization is 100% the cause. That means we need to eliminate the "Too Quickly". The "Density" factor is merely a smoke screen because it is NOT one of the causes for Confusion.

So basically the argument gives 2 potential factors for a phenomenon, argues it is reason NO. 2 because of reason No. 3. Where does No. 3 come into play at all in your potential factors???

Nowhere!

So the gap in the assumption is that the author has presumably eliminated the possibility of No. 1 so that No. 2 is the only cause.

A) does this by saying that "It is NOT the fact that there are too many stories", which in my mind translates to "it is NOT the fact that the stories are too quickly". Hence eliminating No. 1.

I don't see how systematic implies that there are reasons beyond "only protecting". Systematic merely that there is a standardized way of protecting forests. It could be that that because we want to protect the forests and its ecosystem, therefore we came up with a standardized, systematic method to prevent fires.

You can replace systematic with standardized, or routine, or structured etc. Neither of these change the meaning of the stim.

It is correct that we need to rule out other possibilities or reasons to protect fires, but that is not derived from the word Systematic.

Because a roof is a not a wall... A nonexterior wall is still a wall nonetheless.

We know there's public support because of the last sentence. “then there would not be tremendous public support for the project that even critics acknowledge." Critics acknowledge there is tremendous public support, therefore the scientist believes they must be wrong.

All the 5 star questions I'm getting wrong tells me I'm not reading closely enough. aversion to glucose =/= aversion(resistance) to pesticide. Feel so dumb when I realize it's such a simple mistake, spent a solid 5 mins on trying to figure out whether C or D was undermining.

The impartiality comes from all the jurors arguing and coming to an unanimous decision, regardless of their own experiences (composing of influences from mass media exposure)

Yes, but passage B doesn't say anything about adopting standards from another field. It does state news reporters but it says that it "bears no resemblance". The question is asking about something that advances both passages.

I saw the difference in that Chopin did it consistently throughout 39 sections, while the New Women merely experimented with it. Which is where the only difference lay in the ACs.

just the default medium. I found it really helpful to just completely ignore the timing, and spend as much time as you need to eliminate it down to the correct AC. Also, I don't go into the questions until I fully understand the passage (main points, purpose, low res summaries of each paragraph)

I don't really understand how the difficulty works. The last question where you had to infer from context is a 3 star question. This one where the answer literally lies in the passage is 4 star. SMH. Or should I just pay less and less attention to question difficulty.

maybe because Kevin explained it so well and created great low res summaries lol. Something I need to practice doing better as well!

nvmd, re-reading the passage and question, it does indeed talk about "limits the use" and the wrong point in A) is the "actual trials" vs. "simulated trials".

Welp, guess I just got lucky.

So what should I do if I'm eliminating ACs for reasons different than the explanation? Are the following correct or should I keep focusing on aligning my reasoning to how it's explained?

I eliminated A because it talked about usefulness while the passage felt to me as if it talked about effectiveness instead.

I eliminated E because it said "general limitation", while we only had 1 limitation and it was about the last reason.

#feedback #help

yeah, same. I didn't read it closely enough, the study showed that memoirs written by women showed themselves conforming to gender roles. Not what the men wrote, it could be that the men never even mentioned any women for all we know.

Yikes, based on Weiner's argument wouldn't that make most of the global Oriental for all the made in china stuff they've been using?

The way I read it was that 9-5 was just factor X. If X then .15 else .10. Looking at ACs, extensive lab work is X, we just need to find something that says if not normal then lab. X is just a factor that brings in confusion, it should be ignored entirely and the focus should solely be on "normal" and "lab".

Yes, the subscribers is basically saying Arton's claim is false because he has a bad assumption. But doesn't explain why or how the assumption is bad.

It's like me claiming that scientists believe the Earth rotates around the Sun is false, because the assumption of Earth being round is wrong. I give no support as to why the Earth isn't flat, or how the shape of the Earth relates to Earth's rotation.