@roystanator440 said:

@8503 said:

@roystanator440 said:

did anyone else find this one extremely hard minus logic games?

I did. LG was cake, but RC was very rough.

During time I actually didn't do so well on LR, but once I looked it all over I thought LR was pretty easy and I was just having a crappy LR day. But RC was no joke lol

i got 16 and i usually get 21-23 right on RC!!! could not believe it/ WRECKED me

I did LG well, but messed up way too bad on LR and RC and scored the lowest of the year... And I'm taking one next week. While I'm discouraged a bit, I tried to be optimistic because I withdrew this particular exam the day before the date. So lucky for me, haha.

I initially got this one wrong too for the same reason and the answer is no you can't assume that because there are plenty of cases that being similar results in enjoyment. (ex. marble, harry potter, etc.)

If there's any additional info, for example if LSAT writer added something like "audiences don't like similar version," then yeah it'll definitely weaken. But not in this case.

I think "higher concentration" will strengthen G's argument and "lower concentration" weakens it at least very very slightly. If squirrels don't touch lower sugar concentrated trees as frequently, wouldn't it gives at least 0.001% support that sugar could be a reason? Just think that D is much better at weakening the argument. I might be wrong tho.

Let me quote your statement, "If they knew that old=not valuable and young=valuable they wouldn’t be able to make a good argument at all." But we've been expecting writers to write faulty reasonings for all of the assumption questions. Whether certain presumption is reasonable or not, once the answer choice clarifies that unstated assumption, shouldn't that be a right answer choice in Sufficient Assumption questions? Thanks!

Yeah, I did presume the second explanation you have given. I just felt like I needed to accept the author's reasoning because it sounded like a premise. But I see that by the time the author limits to two options, he/she had made an invalid argument! Thanks so much for help. I really appreciate it. :)

Thanks for the reply!

That's not what I'm saying either. I saw the premise of "our choice is clear: adopt my plan or do nothing" as something that we shouldn't attack. But then the answer choice seems to directly attack the premise, saying "You shouldn't limit to two options."

So that's why I was thinking this particular answer choice attacks the premise(We have only two options), not the conclusion (city council should adopt my plan), which seems to work, but is atypical in my opinion. What do you think?

I have a hard time understanding this. Since when were we able to directly attack the premise?

I don't get this. The author is not rejecting the Sigerson's argument but saying that the proposal is "dishonest." I know there should be additional assumptions, but if Sigerson's proposal applies only to the future conduct of city politicians, doesn't that make the proposal even more "dishonest?" Because he's being a jerk who would say like, "I've been getting the funds from such companies and none of you guys will from now on." Please correct me. Thank you!

This is one of the hardest, but one of the most brilliant questions!!

I hate this one..

I think if this question was Most Strongly Supported, what you stated makes sense. But you have to take answer choices as true and see if that explains the argument.

(A) Facial pattern recognition is innate! --> infants are able to distinguish faces from other images. This well explains, doesn't it?

(C) Infants learn to associate faces with necessities of comfort&nourishment --> Infants are able to distinguish faces from other images. Wait. just because infants learn that faces associate with necessities of comfort & nourishment, it is not sufficient to explain they are able to distinguish faces.

In order to make C right answer choice, we'll need to assume "if infants associate faces with necessities of comfort&nourishment, then he/she can distinguish faces." If this assumption is not stated, then the assumption is not warranted.

I personally skip 5~8 questions per section on LR and I skipped 10 questions on this section (this section was particularly hard for me), including this question. I applied what JY showed us on the live commentary:

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/preptest-37-live-commentary-video-1/

So long story short, once you read the stem/stimulus and have no idea what's going on, just skip and move on. I questioned this specific strategy at the beginning because I thought going through many questions twice will eat up my time. But now, in my opinion, you don't waste much time because 1) by the time you go back to the skipped questions, it becomes a lot easier to read and understand and 2) at least half of the questions that I skipped happened to be 4+ stars so you don't feel guilty for random guessing on some of them. Hope this helps!

I should've invested in Tesla back in 2010 or something lol

I eliminated A because I assumed that high-speed limit leads to more fatalities.

But I also chose C because I assumed that if there's more automobile traffic, there should be decreased fatalities because cars are going slow :D

This question really threw me off. I understand why B is right. But I'm still wondering why A is wrong. "important factors determining stamp's value, assuming it is in good condition, are its rarity and age" sounds very vague. Does it mean older one is more valuable? Can't it also mean newer one is more valuable depending on assumptions we take?

If I were to give another example, we can also say that "important factor determining a used-car's value is its age." In this case, wouldn't we assume that newer the car is more valuable one? So I don't think we can assume older one is more valuable just by the stimulus' word "age." So that's why I chose A, the older a stamp is, the more valuable it is to fill the gap that "age" makes a stamp more valuable when it is "older," not "newer." Can anyone correct me? Thanks!

My explanation might be much simpler than what JY has provided. Please correct me if I'm wrong though!

In A, just read "Anything that exists would continue to exist" and forget the rest. Why? Because "Even if" does not seem to make any conditional arrow at all.

ex) If it rains, I will go to museum = R --> M

Even if it rains, I will go to museum. = I will go to museum if it rains. I will also go to museum if it doesn't rain.

According to the stimulus, Universal loss of belief --> $ does not really exist

Answer choice A says exist --> continue to exist. Contrapositive will be not continue to exist --> does not exist. So they seem to match.

You're not alone.

I think the premise is D~AP --> Boost $

And conclusion is LERG --> Commonly receive $ (=Boost $)

Seems like A, LERG --> D~AP fills the gap between the premise and conclusion.

Never knew JY can sing lol

I chose C because it sounded reasonable enough. But the word "larger" in answer choice C was extremely confusing because the stimulus used the word "high." I guess they're interchangeable..