Pro tip: When you're really stuck, re-read the question. I literally read this as "Which of the following must be true?". I don't even know how I made that error. You can see how that made this impossible to get right lol

This ridiculous

@jknlaw The cells that don't get NGF don't get targeted, is what the last paragraph implies. These are also the cells that die (because they don't have NGF). So if there's no NGF, the cell dies - no connection to target cell at all.

Luckily I ran out of time before I could second guess myself and change from A to E.

@joycetheok Same, the question presents two possible ways people build their beliefs on society, but never says that those are the only two ways.

@bappel I think I mistakenly focused on the years and assumed he meant the dust would settle within one or two. Because of that, I still found the correct answer to be logical

@binks I agree. The phrase "slowly build up an olfactory map of their surroundings" to me implies this map is being built as they are transported. There's nothing in the text that specifies that his theory includes cutoff zone for that map or that they need the odor of home. This question should be thrown out if it were on a real test imo

This was tough on a time crunch to understand that the "action" here is the punishment for a crime and the "consequences" are the benefits to society.

Does the LSAT not highlight the relevant text anymore? Or is 7Sage just not doing it for some reason

I got this right for the complete wrong reason. I thought they were implying that the sample size today was not as representative as 25 years ago. Oops

No thanks

Damn, I read "economists" as "author". The classic mistake of failing to read the question properly.

So the fact that films are only capable of reproducing a certain amount of detail qualifies them as "deficient"? I hate the way that word is used here

I didn't at first understand how (C) weakens the argument; it sounded like the stimulus already concedes that dioxin levels around the fish decrease during a shutdown, hence the fish recovering simultaneously. However, this isn't true, because of that stupid "and" statement at the end, which essentially implies that because it can't decompose quickly, it must still be there.

Between B & C, I ended up eliminating B because I wasn't sure if the information that Mary gathered was "accurate and complete". C implies that even if Toril did have information on which she based her decision, it wasn't "complete".

I don't think the explanation for E is sufficient. The bigger problem is that even if antibiotics were used on it, based on the stimulus, it would be resistant to all of them, not some.

I got this right on the first go but switched to D on the blind review. I should have stuck with my gut. "Never" and "any future cases" were way too strong for this answer choice.

@PrayForMe-1 Pretty much, even if it was hard for them to obtain, we know they had the ingredients regardless of how they got them. The part we care about is the production of the white glass, which occurs after the ingredients have been obtained.

I mistakenly look at these types of questions backwards too often. B makes perfect sense when you read it and apply it to the stimulus, but I always try to force it the other way as a different question type.

They key with E is that the conclusion says "the proposal is pointless". If lobsters are catching the disease, though they aren't currently being harmed, humans are becoming ill, and thus the point is to keep people from getting sick.

Another question that relies on an understanding of what a word means. "Demagogue"

I got it right, but this one was hard to see. If we compare how Country X is now (lots of people dying) to how it could be (very few people dying), the answer choice makes sense.

If there is not a distinct word for iron, then Sals did not smelt iron.

If Sals smelted iron, then there is a distinct word for iron.

Such a simple contrapositive that I am mad I missed.

@sighsunusual0c231 it doesn't necessarily have to be an answer that provides a complete alternative explanation, but just something that would cause someone who just read the stimulus to raise an eyebrow and want more data before fully supporting the conclusion.

Anytime there is a "most" statement regarding two separate qualities of one group, we can mathematically assume that there is overlap such that at least some of that group will contain both qualities. So there HAS to be at least 1 person that is happy and goes to graduate school, which is what B says essentially.