I originally got this stupid question wrong bc I misread the question stem. This is MSS, what can we prove out from the stimulus?

Basically, amusia means you are tone deaf. However, you have some ability to keep time of musical sequences. Maybe like 1,2 1,2 or 1,3 1,3.

A) Heightened? Immediately wrong. Further, we dont know anything about "people" in general

B) This is supported because those with amusia can't tell tones apart but they can use timing. So this has some support, although its not rock solid, which is fine for MSS.

C) Immediately wrong because of person in general, we just dont know. Further, if you missed that, it is wrong because the stimulus said they cant discern pitch. Also, It didnt even seem to be a melody, it was random piano keys.

D) Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't it. It is entirely possible that timing is a factor.

E) It is possible that timing is innate, doesn't clarify

Since one objection an to the trail is groundless, the trail should be build. The flaw is that there may be other potential objections and just because one is bad, doesn't mean we should build it.

Analogy: The nike running shoes in the experiment did not work well for football players. Therefore, we should not product this shoe.-- The flaw is that maybe it works well for other athletes, just because one reason is weak, doesn't mean we can conclude we should not do it.

A) CORRECT. Since one bad argument has been made for opposing the trail, we should make the trail. Just because there one reason that is irrelevant, doesn't mean we can just make the trail now. What if it costs 500000000 dollars.

B) This is a part whole flaw. The argument doesnt do this.

C) it is not circular

D) No, the argument says most trailers, not a few. This isnt even the flaw

E)No, they dont attack via ad hom.

This is my interpretation of this. We're given a hypothesis with no support that we need to str.

A) Well, if ones that don't produce phenazines form a wrinkle surface ( I don't think it makes intuitive sense for people to think that a wrinkle surface means everyone is affected by bacteria unless youre some type of scientist). But, it does tell us that a wrinkled surface is in direct contact with surrounding environment. So, even if you didn't get what a wrinkled surface was, it tells you what it does. So, if everyone needs to be in direct contact for nutrients, it does strengthen the fact that in a huge colony, the internal bacteria would need a pipeline. Nonetheless, I think this requires a lot of abstract thinking and a few assumptions/outside knowledge to get to this portrayal.

B) This doesnt get to the core that the phenazines act as pipelines

C) Ok, so this kinda says that you can grow strong without phenazines. This might weaken

D)We already know this, kind of a booster of what we know

E) This would seem to contradict

I think the problem with this is you have to assume the bacteria forms a circle shape with the interior not getting as much nutrients as the ones on the edges. It seems really really really abstract

@ not reacting negatively, I'm telling you it's not a good idea. I think you're just mad you didn't get the answer you wanted. Maybe they won't ask for your grades but they'll definitely ask to report your LSAT. Regardless of the grades, what I said was accurate. Don't get mad when the truth hurts? We might be doing you a favor with an unrealistic . What's laughable is that your butt hurt about it

You'd be naive to believe a top 20 school isn't going to seriously consider your uGPA and LSAT scores, even if its not gonna be reported on their admission stats. Im sure a shit ton of kids in the top 10-20% of their class try to transfer. I'd bet you wouldnt get in being the top 10% and a 152 LSAT. I'm almost positive that the school you mentioned isn't competitively ranked so I'm sure they will strongly consider your LSAT score.. plus transferring is going to affect your class ranking and probably nullify your ability to go on law review. It makes your 35% ish chance of going corporate out of USC marginally smaller. Big firms recruit the top freshman... your chances are going to diminish as a transfer

I never did 5 sections once and it felt fine on test day. I think your mental focus and adrenaline levels are gonna be up that day that the 5 section test feels like 1 hour. Ur also gonna make ur BLind Review that much longer

Imo, the law job market is so competitive you need every advantage to get hired. Unless you're going t-14 or maybe other sub elite schools like UCLA outside of the t-14, your degree isn't gonna be very transferable. You might end up having a tough Time

I think the LR was a bit harder and the RC was hard but the easy LG made up for it..

I think the odds of you going to USC arent great even if you were top 15% of your class, I'm pretty sure there gonna ask for your LSAT scores and UG GPA. Second, you have no guarantee of being in the top of your class, everyone is there to work hard and the tests are a lot different from anything you've seen. Not sayin it's impossible but youre rolling dice. Maybe you get into USC, they arent gonna give you any substantial money for transferring. Living in LA plus tuition is an easy 65k a year. Their corporate placement is 1/3. If you aren't in that 1/3, youre gonna be in crippling debt...

Relax bro, take a week off... go out drink, do whatever you want. Then get back to working, a gym routine, etc. Then if you plan on taking June, start practicing again in a month or so

@ it was comparative. I had the real RC as it was my only RC section. If you had two, name the subject matter of each and I can confirm

That RC was just complete bullshit. I read that third passage and almost had no idea what the fuck I just read. How can you even prepare for that shit. I graduated top of my class in undergrad so I think I have a decent level of intelligence but that was just brutal. Compared to older LSATS.. Lol

Admin edit: Too much info.

@ did you have the logic game with 1-8 floors?

I remember now. It was 8 floors in a building. It seemed inherently impossible to finish bc there was like 20 worlds and every question was could be true? Is this experimental? If not, I fucked up Lg..

Admin note: Edited some details out.

Okay, I had two LR. I remember one of the sections had a question about bats. The other LR, I have no idea.. Sorry. Can anyone with double RC or triple LR confirm LG?

I only had one RC. The real RC must have been the one where the last passage is about shrubs, bushes.

So what was the experimental game section? I think it was the one with ordering and grouping VIA numbers because I've never seen that... But idk

@ Yes I had agonizing shoulder/neck/clavicle pain. I have fucked up rotator cuffs from the gym so I figured t was that. I soon realized it was the test. I started seeing a chiro and take muscle relaxers going into the February LSAT. They don't affect me cognitively and do not make me tired. Methocarbonol

The city claims that recycling weekly will increase volume of recyclables and make it more cost-effective. The editor is saying that the city's new weekly recycle program will NOT be more cost-effective. He says that it will be the same amount of volume spread out, overall.

C) Taking less time doesn't necessarily weaken his argument because we don't know whether or not this is cost-effective. They are taking two trips, using double gas, resources, etc. Maybe it's not cost-effective... this could then strengthen his argument. Depending on what you assume, it could str or wkn.

D) This weakens if you assume following an easy schedule means youll put out more bottles. But this is a stretch imo. Just because it's easier to follow, doesnt really mean anything..does that mean they'll have more bottles to recycle? Will they just not recycle if its hard to follow? Maybe people will recycle regardless of how hard it is. This seems like it could easily be the wrong answer on another question... maybe it's the best of 4 crappy ones. but really? I immediately eliminated because the assumption it requires would seems to be the wrong trap answer 99% of the time

This simple match the logic. Usually = most

Katie Wed ‑m→ GJ -> LCHS (the only sufficient condition)

Therefore, KATIE Wed ←s→ LCHS. Valid argument.

A) Cafe Delic ‑m→ Main Kitchen -> Culinary Institute

Therefore, Cafe Delic ←s→ Culinary institute

This is really easy but hard because E isnt too obvious under timed circumstanced.

However, E) is analogous. If a convicted criminal has an illegal resource to profit from (his crime story). Just like the stimulus stated the corporation had illegal funds. Then, the criminal in E) uses that illegal resource to profit, just like the stimulus did. Now, just as the stimulus did, the criminal writer should not be able to make any profit. Hence, it should be donated to a third party.

None of the other answer choices really come close. They dont talk about profits and then giving it all away/making up for it.

Basically, four answers miss the mark and one answer barely explains it...

A) Many does not equal all. Its possible that many does not include the chem majors. This requires too much assuming for a resolve/reconcile

B) Just because NS is lacking, doesn't mean CHEM has to follow suit. Most business majors suck, doesnt mean accounting is bad.

C) Many? See, maybe all of the chem majors are sure. I think if you put "enough" students are ensure, I think the assumption isn't much bigger than E's assumption. Id eliminate solely on many

D) Doesnt matter, nor does it explain

E) Ah, so it has less intellectual appeal, so kids are dropping it. Seems like a warranted assumption if you live a in fairy tale world, I've never heard of someone switching majors bc of of intellectual appeal. You love chem, the job prospects are great, but now its a little more boring. Everyones all of a sudden dropping it, yeah okay.. So that means there's a significant decline? Doesn't really seem to explain a SIGNIFICANT decline.

The overall results of a pull where that there was a 40C, 20M, 40L distribution. Therefore, each individual person in the poll prefers a 40, 20, 40 distribution.

The flaw is hard to put into words, but easy to get a hold of in your mind. Just because I voted for a C, doesn't mean I want to see a 40% C distribution, maybe I voted with a 100%C in mind. Therefore, you can't take the overall results of a survey and individualize it the way they did in this case.

C) Yes, its saying the overall preferences do not match the individual wishes of each respondent.

E) Misses the mark but sounds right. However, "precisely quantified" does not match "roughly" in the stimulus. Descriptively inaccurate. If you narrow down 2 answer choices, try to see if they are both accurate in this sense. This tip helps a lot, thanks j.y.

Wow, pretty easy to spot the flaw, thought it was a parallel MOR under timed, should pay closer attention to question stems..

Since we have all these diseases, they probably didnt cause mass extinction? Premise: Because one of them couldnt have caused the entire extinction

Flaw: The whole set of diseased could have potentially caused the extinction

B) Correct - Yes, this matches. It says we can't fix the apartment because one of us doing have the skills necessary too. The flaw is that they can do it together, just like the diseases could have caused mass extinction together

The others dont come close, imo.