This section makes me miss LG, the funnest part of LSAT

I don't understand why this is under the SA part, I feel like this should be at the very front of the LR questions like an intro. I think the Trilogy does a better job at organizing the curriculum, I have liked 7sage so far but just this part is throwing me off.

How did I miss out on "Primary" for (D). Was so stuck between B and D, chose D because I figured if they used Nuclear or horsepower, then electricity would be useless. Didn't realize that was only the "primary source".

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.

So you're telling me some people can do this entirely in their mind instantly :O

So in question 5, wouldn't "they should stop producing...." act as a sub-conclusion with the direct premises support of "Since none of them....". While this entire sentence acts as a premise for the main conclusion that "this is not a sustainable, long term solution."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

Interested !

I missed E because I thought that since lobsters were not harmed by gill disease, it meant they didn't have gill disease to be transmitted to humans through consumption. I missed that they can contract the disease but not be physically harmed by it until years later.

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.

I chose D but I realized that we can't deduce anything about prices because it's the Necessary Condition in the "Investment Not Decreasing" logic line. When we contrapose the premises from the stim, /P goes on the left side, therefore we don't know what prices are in a Not Weak Economy. We only know that if Prices are Not Constant then it leads to a Not Weak Economy, but not the other way around. Classic Sufficient Necessary flip. Can't believe I still fell for it during Blind Review

I thought of a situation where it could be the club doing promotions. Perhaps members rent a movie for $1 each, whereas non-members rent for $10 each. Therefore, Pat not a member rented 9 movies spending $90, so the club wanted to reward this non-member patron who seems to like throwing money around. Since there was nothing excluding this situation from happening, it must be possible.

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.

Even reading comments I still don't fully understand why A is incorrect. The 1st environment indicates the surrounding/parenting/community the criminal grew up in correct? While the 2nd environment indicates overall/general society.

The difference would be that a normal law abiding citizen has no say in how another person should raise their child. Even if I think my neighbor is raising his kid wrong, I can't do anything about it. So the environment is different, I participated in creating the general society but played no part in forging the criminal's upbringings. Am I guess I must be overthinking this but I just can't wrap my head around it.

Despite JY's explanation of E makes total sense, it's just through the process of elimination I still have a hard time eliminating A.

I guess it inferred to carry over the left over mine to the next year because they do a tally of the TOTAL MINED minus TOTAL CONSUMPTION.

So if I was keeping tally for past 10 years and mined 100 each year. The current year's tally would state 1000 instead of this year's 100. I guess that would be the only explanation. Still the question is worded vague.

Hi I'm super interested! Let me know how to best contact you!

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

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".

I think of it as the last example:

Every year America produces 100g of almonds, and 80g of these are grown in California. Every year 800 out of 1000 tons of produce from California are exported to Brazil. It just so happens that those 80g of almonds are in those 200 tons of produce not exported to Brazil but shipped to the Vatican so the Pope himself can chew them.

There's nothing stopping the first set being tiny but still fulfilling the "most requirement" while the second set being humongous and just so happens to neglect the first set. When looking at validity, every single possibility must be considered, even if there's just 1 scenario where it could be false, then it cannot be valid.

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.