Yes exactly my thinking! If a music scholar says "it vanished from our historical consciousness" I translate that to mean everyone that would be interested in it, i.e. other scholars, musicians, & music students.
That makes sense then! Originally I was thinking the author could either be a musicologist or someone studying music since I think that "our" refers to the music community in general.
Ignoring the fact we now know they're a musicologist, I guess we could look at the subject matter and say it's reasonable to think they're a musicologist. But I still don't think you can assume the "our" wouldn't refer to musicians too. I think to myself, "what is musicology?" -- the study of music. Who's involved in the study of music? Professors who are subject matter experts on the various aspects of music, and their students. Those aspects would include the history of music, how to play instruments & compose, etc. So when the author says "our historical consciousness", thinking that refers to musicologists only is too narrow.
Even if we take the "our" to refer to musicologists only, I think (E) is still supported for Q02. If musicologists don't have access to a modern scholarly edition, and if we think of musicologists as the subject matter experts when it comes to the study of music, then how would a musician have access to it? Musicologists are the ones who are doing the research into the history of music and disseminating it to their students; I think it's safe to say they're the source of that information for the average musician. So if there's not a modern scholarly edition of the LPS floating around somewhere that the scholars can find, I don't see how a musician would find a modern edition. I'm also thinking the "scholarly" aspect is important on the grounds it verifies historical accuracy; if there's no scholarly edition, then whatever edition might be floating out there can't be said to be the original song/composition.
Probably a year too late; but for anyone else that needs it, the lessons begin here:
https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/universal-quantifiers-overview/
https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/existential-quantifiers-overview/
I think "our historical consciousness" is referring to musicologists & people studying music since the sentence preceding talks about the general unavailability of the school's music in modern scholarly editions. I wouldn't venture out to say the author is a musicologist themselves -- I don't see anything in the passage to suggest that.
For me personally, it was easier to understand (D) intuitively.
If they can't communicate, the only way to detect them is by sending a spacecraft.
In other words: if we're going to detect them, there are only two ways to do that → (1) communication or (2) by spacecraft
Translate into lawgic (making "detect" & "determine" interchangeable):
detect (A) → send spacecraft (B) or communicate (C)
communicate (C) → at least as intelligent (D)
/send spacecraft (/B)
------------------------
determine (A) → at least as intelligent (D)
[A → C → D]
Is the proper way to negate (B) to say it's not likely old OF's were drained AND (not likely) new OF's were discovered? I translated the negation as "not likely old OF's drained OR new OF's discovered", meaning one of them could still have happened.
If anyone could link to the lesson for negating "or" statements, I'd really appreciate it -- I looked but couldn't find it, although I do believe it exists.
@larathoon17 said:
if you're a Mac user, google "proctor U set up for Mac" before the day of the exam, there's a good Reddit thread on it.
I'm having trouble finding which thread, would you mind posting the link to it?
I understand why (E) is correct, but during timed I didn't even make it that far -- I chose (B) and moved on. I thought (B) was eliminating another cause besides the Euro earthworm that could've been responsible for the goblin fern decline, essentially blocking an alternate explanation that would weaken the conclusion.
What am I missing here so I don't make this mistake again? #help
For me the wording here was just so tricky: "size of the [IN] determines whether or not [they] can contract disease X".
When it came to E, I didn't take the conclusion to mean IN & disease X were "causally linked" since it doesn't say a larger IN "causes" the contraction of disease X, only that they "can" contract it. So in this case E didn't seem to anything since I didn't take the conclusion to mean they were "causally linked" -- in other words, I thought "causally linked" means A (larger IN) causes B (disease X).
I guess if a factor causes eligibility (for lack of a better word) to contract a disease, that can be said to mean the same thing as that factor being causally linked to the disease?
#help
You are not alone! I literally did the same thing/had the same thought process -- curse you Loophole!! 😫🤦
Got major RRE vibes from this question, just goes to show how interrelated the different question stems really are.
Starting to consider taking the GRE if things go south with my next LSAT take. Do you think a GRE score that's in the median or higher percentile could boost an application with below-median LSAT scores?
Will there be an announcement once the exams + feedback are posted?
Has anyone spoken with LSAC and found out if they're leaning towards Flex for January & February? I just tried to register for January but there aren't any test centers available, which is strange because there are always test centers available this far in advance.
February has the generic "(city) area test center" listed instead of the usual specific centers while April does have the specific centers.
I took my first flex PT and scored the same as I did on my previous real (5-section) take for whatever it’s worth — I think the scoring will be consistent as JY says. 🤷 Try alternating between both versions and see what happens.
I feel like we could draw an arrow from "canceled" to police dramas, so the chain would read N(L) ‑m→ C → PD, making it easier to see how (D) strengthens.
I’m slightly confused on how exercise “depends on” state of health; I’d translate “depends on” to “requires”, so wouldn’t that still be E →(causes) less sick? I thought the thing that’s depending on something else goes to the left of the arrow? Maybe I’m just getting this mixed up with lawgic translation, but I thought the same idea behind the translation applies for drawing out correlation/causation relationships.
#help
!@#$*%^&
sobs like Salem
☝️ me after seeing I fell for (A).