This was another question I glossed over too quickly, and I remember seeing the correct Answer Choice in E as a bait, because it would force me to make the assumption that the more police officers there are, the lower the crime rate would be when it is in fact a fair assumption to make. I chose answer choice C because it fit into the cookie-cutter answer choice mold as a percentage vs. quantity discrepancy, but after reading the conclusion and premises again I see now that the author never claimed crime in general decreased significantly, only that of violent crime and even in his referential phrasing, he never deviated from that. I simply was too eager to pick the right answer choice and move on so I could save time. I still flagged it, however, and had an inclination to go back to it.

This was another Q I got wrong due to glossing over the stimulus too quickly, and the convenient, sneakily-worded answer choice that baited me to choose it and move on without re-engaging with the stimulus. I did struggle for a moment between choosing A and C, but C had the buzzwords I wanted to hear and sounded more subtle and broad, so I thought it'd be the safer answer choice. On future PTs, I'll be sure to be more skeptical with these answer choices and save them for the end so I can feel more comfortable spending more time on them.

I sped through this question and consequently didn't read it as clearly as I should have. The stimulus asserts from the beginning that reporters allowed their biases to affect news coverage, with evidence that supposedly proves this to be true. I immediately picked up on the causal relationship illustrated in the stimulus, which was represented in Answer Choice D, but the answer was referring to the electorate's voting behavior in general, not specifically that of reporters, which is a subset and could possibly be an exception. Meanwhile, Answer Choice B points out the correct vulnerability, which is the percentage and quantity discrepancy which is also a cookie-cutter answer choice.

I initially chose E, after falling into the trap that the LSAT writers set out that we naturally associate sunburns with skin cancer. The stimulus asserts this, but does not actually exhibit any evidence that proves this correlation. Therefore, although E would be correct if the stimulus did prove that sunburn and skin cancer are associated, A is ultimately the correct answer because it points out this assumption in the first place.

This is a great example of a Weakening Q Stem because the answer holds the premises to be true, while attacking its support. By claiming that in other areas with gambling, parents are able to raise children of good character, we are asserting that gambling is not an entirely detrimental entity to children developing good character, which is what L.E. is asserting to be fact. I chose Answer D initially, because I thought it attacked the causal support of the argument, but it simply isn't enough to claim that children whose parents do not gamble do not necessarily gamble when they become adults. I realized there was a gap between children raised in a setting and how it affects them into adulthood, but "necessarily" could mean 1% of children aren't affected by their parents gambling while every other child is.

Interested

Two months of six hour, no-nonsense study sessions, burnt out multiple times, increased score from 140s to 160s.

Am I the only one who assumed that cheaper prices for gasohol would lead to more usage, thereby weakening the statement?

#help

Interested!

Couldn't E.) be used to also support Foster's conclusion? If the large mammals were too large to migrate, they couldn't escape climate change or the arrival of the humans?

#help