!@#$*%^&

sobs like Salem

☝️ me after seeing I fell for (A).

—

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/

This is a damn math question.

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?

Going into the ACs, I thought the flaw was circular reasoning..

I wish more RC passages would be as interesting as this one!

This definitely reads more like a disguised RRE question to me.

Will there be an announcement once the exams + feedback are posted?

I hate math.

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

I did! I tried to map the chain in my head but couldn't, so I moved on and came back on round 2 to map it out on paper.

You go girl!! 🏅