In addition to this and maybe a more understandable explanation for C being incorrect is that it says - approx 60 percent of them had never awakened with a sense of a strange presence in the room. But we have no idea about that. We only know about awaking feeling paralyzed with a sense of a strange presence. it is very possible the everyone else has awakened with a sense of a strange presence in the room BUT DID NOT FEEL paralyzed.

The difficulty of this question for me was I knew and understand what Sid was trying to say as its a very applicable real word scenario. For example - Not voting because you think your ONE votes changes nothing. but if everyone had that mentality no one would vote ect. SO when i read the question stem and it asked why his argument is questionable i was kinda stumped. I got rid of C-E pretty easily just had a hard time parsing out A and B and applying an LSAT mindset to get the answer.

very difficult question.

C - includes the bold lines and primary colors used in pop art but the inner turmoil part is off.

D - shapes and images to make a statement about consumer culture sounds good but "vague" misses the mark.

E - which is correct is almost too vague. sure a painting that depicts magazine adverts commenting on society's values seems to sound like pop art. But reading C and D before may have you questioning and burning time.

Reminder that once something is wrong in an answer choice to get rid of it. C for example: a painting conveying its creators inner turmoil was enough to get rid of. Especially if you know what pop art is and can imagine a real world example.

D - a little tougher because of the vague shapes and the passage doesn't say anything about that. But thats almost a clue in itself. again being able to envision what pop art is i should have eliminated faster.

E - sometimes the plain boring answer is correct and you have to pick it and move on.

Youre missing the part where the question asks us "argumentation conforms most closely to..." What is the argument in the simplest form - a sudden increase in a problem is often heightened awareness of an issue and not an actual increase in the problem itself. it even says maybe we just got better at recording its occurrence. SO we should be wary of proposals for RADICAL solutions to problems when they are in REACTION to new stats. Ok - so this is a sub group of problems and I can think of a dozen real world examples. For example think of the sudden increase in ADHD/autism, apparently everyone has it. now is it possible that there is just better recognition of these issues and access to assessments, and not that the underlying conditions have become more common? Obvs it can go both ways cuz everyone thinks they have it because they watched a 30sec tik tok video. Now when going to the answer choice i want something that MOST closely conform to the argumentation so it doesnt matter if you think its to strong if the rest of the answer choice are garbage. A is correct as - a better cognizance (awareness) of a problem does NOT warrant the undertaking of a radical solution to the problem. PERFECT thats exactly what are passage says. we should not/ or we should be WARY of proposals for radical solutions when they are in reaction to new sats because they are OFTEN merely reflective of a heightened awareness of a problem.

B - wrong when did the argument say we need to make attempts to precede anything.

C - based on stats alone - no what??

D - manipulated - sorry no youre not manipulating me to choose that bs

E - sounds good but the argument never follows this line of reasoning.

on the LSAT for this question it would need to say that for E to be correct. you need the impartiality to be clear.

I dont usually think that the answer choice is BS or wrong ect. but for A -professional solidarity is colleagues within the same group/occupation standing together to advocate for the right/support/protection of eachother. A teachers union going on strike to protect their falsely accused colleagues supports this. In contrast I also see how B fulfils this. However i did not choose as I thought concealing the distortions of another colleagues work didnt complete the picture.

A is the correct answer as it clearly states there is overlap but the inference or the further thought that "others served exclusively in one court or the other" just takes a bit of thinking. because if there is some overlap where does everyone else fall? in one side or the other. its pretty obvious, but it is one of those things that requires a few more seconds of thought. sigh...

Very old PT - gone are the days of the two paragraph passages :/

practice exams everyday day. Immediately stop doing that.

@Bruh To caught up on finding a "rule". An Archaeologist makes argument that the mosaics should not have been removed because future ones studying the site may no have access to their records and be misled. OK we want to Justify/support their reasoning. A - tells us that the only considerations whether the mosaics should have been removed are archaeological. Perfect we have an archaeologist making the argument and this answer choice also blocks the possibility that any other consideration for them being moved is not sufficient. i.e moving because they anticipated it was going to be flooded was not good enough.

@babachanianaren905 Guys - were looking to strengthen the argument. Which is (printed books being replaced by electronic formats are exaggerated because bookstores and public libraries will stock the format of books desired by the general public). Since we are strengthening before i even look at the answer choice i can predict something that would strengthen this idea. i.e the format desired by the general public is print format. B strengthens this idea.

C - has nothing to do with strengthening the argument i pointed out above. if anything my response to it is "so what?" i NEED something that strengthens the idea the print format will stick around. Just because a group (scholars and scientists) dont usually conduct their research in PUBLIC libraries doesnt tell us anything. They have their own RESEARCH libraries.

hope this helps someone. you need to disrespect the answer choice and lit be calling them dumb af when they are.

this is the part to whole flaw written in an entire passage...

You did not need to know what the spleen is made up of to get this question right.

We're told that a specific type of seal (Antarctic) dives to great depths and stay submerged for hours. Next they do not SOLELY rely on oxygen held in lungs but also store extra oxygen in their blood. Then a hypothesis that these seals (Antarctic) also store oxygenated blood in their spleens.

(REMEMBER IF TRUE) - look for 4 that support and the other will not/ do nothing

A - gives us a reason to believe this hypothesis and provides support. If another animal species is known to have this ability its possible that this specific seal can too.

B - cool that wasnt the hypothesis? it was store oxygenated blood in their spleens.

C - if true adds support that another aspect is needed for their deep dives.

D - Larger than other aquatic mammals who do not deep dive adds support if true because it gives us reason to believe the larger size may account for the oxygenated blood in THEIR spleens.

E - THESE spleens of THESE seals have greater concentration of blood vessels which if true provides support that they may be designed for storing the oxygenated blood.

WTF is this

it sucks when you enjoy the passage and think you have a good understanding then go to the answer choices and find them extremely difficult. 5/8

what...

Reading this stim i immediately caught the flaw in the argument and told myself that there could be another reason that causes damage to the throat and cause snoring ( a weakener). The question stem asks us to strengthen the argument which E does and also happens to be the opposite of what I predicted ruling that alternate explanation out.

slimy question

So, is the first sentence a throw away?

Missing questions early on in the section is killing you. For the most part, those are free points at a 160 level and especially at 170+. Slow down and focus on getting those right. if you just got the first 10 -15 right each section you would've picked up 10 more correct answers. you dont need to finish the sections to get a 160+.

I follow the same line of reasoning as most for this question. How do we know that the revised versions were of the 1943 book. But using POE none of the other answers are even remotely stated. SO (B) was the best choice)

Blunt advice - you’re not even remotely close to being ready to write in September. if you hoping for a high 160-170. You will never get THAT lucky on a test. It’s not going to magically click under timed conditions on test day.

Blind review is helpful as it offers some insight into what you really know. But during blind review how many times did you just switch that 50/50 to the other option? How many times did you justify that if you had more time you would’ve selected this answer? The test gets a lot easier when you blind review and now it’s only 4 options to choose from and 3 of those turn out to be absolute garbage. We just switch our answer and tell ourselves we understand.

With that being said. Keep pushing and you will get to your goal score. Stop Trying to force a 30pt gap its only adding to your anxiety and pressure. You also don’t even need to complete the sections to get 160s. So you can save on the time pressure you feel by only completing 16-20 questions. But your accuracy still has to be near perfect for those. AIM to do 10 questions then 15 then 20. Stop focusing on doing all 25-27.

Like seriously - go take a full test or section and do 10 questions then 15 and 20 max. Guess the rest. I bet you will be in the high 150s.

wish you the best of luck and hope you do get the score you’re looking for!!

I chose B since the author says Drescher has reconstructed the populist characteristics of British abolitionism, which appears to have cut across lines of class, party, and religion.

And then at the end of the para says

Drescher does not finally explain how England, a nation deeply divided by class struggles, could mobilize popular support for antislavery measures proposed by otherwise conservative politicians in the House of Lords and approved there with little dissent.

My rational based on this was the author thinks Drescher introduces this (Idea) but does not fully explain/support it. So Dreschers explanation concerning liberty is incomplete or unrealistic based on what we "know" of British liberty.

you could also easily do POE for this question.

A - not support

B - supported

C - not supported

D - not even closely supported

E - not even closely supported

very tricky use of the phrasing might not be prepared to join. It reads as if its saying that group would not join the other 26%. But what it really means is the argument is failing to consider that some of those who would donate would not also join the party. Leaving us with the possibility that we can get 30% or more.

Many people seem to be overlooking the conclusion. Remember, when the author gives their opinion about why something happened or why something should happen, that's almost always the conclusion. In this stimulus, the conclusion is essentially: it's not because of this factor; it's because the public is more interested. I think identifying those "it's not X, it's Y" statements is one of the most reliable ways to find the conclusion.

Ironically, I overlooked this in my own analysis at first and thought the opening sentence was the conclusion. On my first read, I liked choices A, B, and E. Once I narrowed it down to those three, I knew I had misunderstood something in the stimulus, so I went back and reread it.

One thing you have to keep reminding yourself on the LSAT is: don't choose an answer you can't fully explain or can't say with certainty is supported by the stimulus.

Here's how I worked through the remaining choices:

• A: I liked the first half, but the claim that more coverage than crime rate alone justifies the increased public interest was never stated. That language goes beyond what the stimulus says.

• B: After rereading the stimulus, I realized it had the relationship backwards, so I eliminated it.

• E: No tricks, no unnecessary language. It simply describes what the author did. The author rejected one explanation and offered an alternative explanation. It couldn't be much clearer than that. There are no extra fluff words or hidden assumptions—just a straightforward description of the argument.