Sign me up

They're going to post the whole thing to everybody for free

https://old.reddit.com/r/LSAT/comments/xjr5ei/powerscore_crystal_ball/ipa5tkr/

Doesn't "only if" introduce a biconditional? Meaning both resign only if convicted and if convicted then resign? (R then C & C then R) I know the phrase "if and only if" introduces a biconditional but doesn't "only if" do so as well? #help

I thought it was just saying in #25 judges and lawyers "too" as in both not like "too often" like too much. I thought it was just saying both of them so just saying judges and lawyers often act as though there is a fact of the matter in legal cases. Hahaha. So frustrating! I didn't even look at the other ACs after that the question was supposed to be a gimme!

Those are both really high scores and the LSAT is a hard test. I would just relax at this point because you've got this.

They even italicized the word "unexpectedly" in C but who's going to notice that when the clock is ticking

What bothers me about this question is when it says "all other things being equal" at the beginning of the prompt. Does that not include depression etc. when all other things are equal here?

Regardless though I'm having trouble following the logic here and it's pointless for me to inject my own logic I want to understand the LSAT. I picked A (answered in 30 seconds and didn't come back to the question falling for a trap) thinking that it meant for some pet owners it gives them the potential to be even happier than others without pets (conclusion is about being as happy as possible) and sage dramatized this in the explanation by saying it wouldn't matter if it went from most to everyone but I'm still not understanding. Is it because of the distinction between actually being happy versus the pet making a pet owner feel happier?

Thanks if anyone responds--

Edit: Nevermind I think I just get it as you can see at the end of my rant! Never feels good to get pantsed by the LSAT! They actually just threw us a bone in A by not saying "everyone" instead of "most" which would have made it an even larger trap.

Another thing that's wrong with C I think is even if they're using special techniques you'd still think it's not better for them then not being engaged in those high stress activities at all which ironically kind of leads to E because to think that people can engage in those activities while being physically healthier than people who don't means E basically. I picked C at the beginning of my studies but now that I'm doing this question for the second time I can really see how wrong it is and how important it is when you're wrong to look back at how you're wrong instead of trying to argue about how right we are when we're actually just super wrong!

I picked E through process of elimination but I really don't think the explanation or ultimately the question/answer makes sense (or it's just super duper subtle and depends on assuming when the commentator says "unfortunately" at the beginning that means their second argument is aimed at changing Roehmer's views).

Impugning motives in the prompt (or stimulus whatever it's called haha) is denoted as something that alienates people and doesn't change minds but what does that have to do with the second argument when the commentator is not attempting to change Roehmer's opinion? I guess the word "Unfortunately" at the very beginning shows that the commentator would like Roehmer to change her/his ways. Very subtle though if that's it. The only saving grace is that the other answer choices to me really really really didn't work.