If it's not too late, I would also be interested in joining a study group. Currently testing in 145-150 range.

Would (C) actually strengthen the argument? If this argumentative techniques makes candidates appear more fair-minded and trustworthy, and voter generally vote based on their opinions of candidates character, then they would be more likely to vote for the candidates? This is one explanation that I landed on for why (C) is incorrect and wondering if anyone else sees this connection.

#help (Added by Admin)

To cut costs and maximize profits, Kapp used inferior materials to build library. He was wrong to do this, because as an experienced and knowledgeable builder, he knew (must have realized) that he was putting people in serious risk.

Sufficient assumption question, we are looking for the answer choice that properly draws the conclusion that this was wrong. We need something along the lines of...it’s wrong to cut corners when you have the knowledge/experience to know that people will be put at risk by your actions.

A.) Wrong, kind of just restating the premise, and doesn’t say anything declarative about this action being wrong. We need to clearly link actions-wrong

B.) Ok? Are his actions morally wrong? And is that the argument being made here? Again, we need to clearly link his actual actions to wrong.

C.) Not relevant. Tries to get us to focus on a part of the stimulus that is not relevant.

D.) This is exactly what we need. Kapp took actions to maximize his profits, and this is wrong for him to do.

E.) Again, clearly failing to link up actions-wrong

Conclusion is that our solar system's conditions has probably favored the emergence of life more than most other solar systems of a similar age. The reasons given are 1. that any conceivable form of life needs the presence of chemical elements heavier than hydrogen and helium, and 2. our solar system has an abundance of those elements that’s unusual for its age.

Since this is just an argument part question, we are only concerned with describing the role played by the claim immediately following the conclusion.

A.) Wasn’t really sure about it, but arrived through process of elimination. It is just one part of the evidence that is offered for the only conclusion, the first sentence of the stimulus.

B.) It was between this and (A) for me. I eliminated (B) because it is not offered as support for the statement that follows. It’s just one premise, that is added to another premise, and together they form the “evidence” for the main conclusion.

C.) No evidence is provided for this statement.

D.) Wrong, this is clearly not the main conclusion.

E.) Wrong, it’s not so much a conclusion as it is information/context. And taken together with the following sentence, it is actually offered as support for the main conclusion.

Katelin says that we will be hit by a major snowstorm tomorrow. So she probably believes that the car show will be cancelled, since it won’t be held if the snowstorm happens.

Flaw: implication flaw, we can’t assign beliefs to Katelin that she doesn’t explicitly state. She could be unaware that the show will be cancelled, or she could very well believe that the show will go on.

We are looking for a flaw in the answer choices that mirrors the flaw in the stimulus.

A.) Wrong, I do actually think that we can assign the “probably believes” label to Jorge here. He says that given the pollution levels correctly they WILL become extinct. We’re also told that it is “widely known” so again, this may actually work. Either way, it does not match the stimulus as we are not given any indication that Katelin knows anything about the car show being cancelled.

B.) Yes, this matches perfectly. Bo says soil in his backyard is poorly drained, and we are given additional premises that raspberry bushes do not grow well in poorly drained soil. But we don’t know if Bo knows that, or if he even believes that.

C.) Does not match up well with the stimulus. We are told that “most” people that have Wanda’s belief also believe this other thing, so we have at least some information/evidence that gives us a better chance of drawing that conclusion. No such evidence exists in the stimulus.

D.) Tricky, but no. “Might” is weaker than “probably” so while they are still assigning a belief to the chemistry professor, the link is not as strong as it is in the stimulus.

E.) Wrong. Just does not match up well with the stimulus. We are given more information on what Dr. Bowder “knows”. And also, this AC contains a sufficient/necessary flaw that we don’t have in the stimulus.

For question 25

I initially chose answer choice (A) during the timed run but changed my answer to (E) on BR. Here is where I landed on the reasoning for why (A) is correct.

The question stem is asking us to make an inference on what would most likely be an agreeable compromise based on the argument the author is making.

According to the last sentence in the last paragraph, the argument is that it will be difficult to resolve the clash between the internet community, which is used to treating info as raw material that is available for everyone, and the publishing community, which is accustomed to treating published works as a commodity and therefore expect to be compensated. (expectation of compensation also mentioned in last sentence of first paragraph)

(A) is correct because internet users would only have to pay a small fee for the digitilization of copyrighted works. So once it's digitalized (converted into a series of digits that are transmitted as electronic signals) the work would then go on to be reproduced and shared but only the person who digitilizes the work would have paid a small fee. Every digital copy after that would not be covered by this addition to the law (and would be impossible to enforce every subsequent copy after the initial digitalization), and therefore would be widely available to internet users, while providing some compensation to the copyright holder.

For those feeling uneasy about the inference this question requires us to make, I found this insight helpful from a former LSAT question writer on the difference between inference questions in LR vs RC: https://youtu.be/d6Dy5baeiGA?t=147 (explanation starts at 2:27)

Hope this helps!

Almost all paintings from the city's art movement share 2 characteristics: 1. Bold brushworks and 2. Sharp contrast in light and shadows. The only ones that don’t share these are abstract paintings, because they’re nonrepresentational and do not display light or shadows. The most famous painting cannot be considered part of the movement because it does not have light and shadow, but it does have bold brushwork.

Flaw: Well, doesn’t it share the same characteristics as the abstract works, and aren’t those the only ones in the art movement that do not have the characteristics? What if Blue Irises falls into the abstract category?

Since it’s a necessary assumption, we are looking for an answer that closes off this possibility.

A.) We don’t know that all non-representational works are abstract works, so this does not close off the possibility.

B.) Ok, extra information that isn’t really relevant. If it doesn't depict any shadows at all, the of course there is nothing to contrast.

C.) Yes, this is exactly what we need.

D.) Extra info that is not needed. Ok, but this tells us nothing about Blue Irises.

E.) Again, this tells us nothing about Blue Irises and why it can’t be considered part of the city’s art movement. Light and shadow is a sufficient condition for paintings emerging from the art movement, but since Blue Irises fails it anyway, the rule is irrelevant here.

City official says that landowners must clear sidewalks along the edge of their properties of snow within 24 hours after the end of a snow storm. The City has the right to clear any snow still left after 24 hours and will bill the landowners for this service. If snow has not been cleared after 48 hours, landowners will receive a citation, which includes a fine that has to be paid, unless extenuating circumstances can be proven.

We are looking for the answer choice that must be true if all the statements in the stimulus are true.

A.) True. This will all happen, and the only thing that we don’t know that could still happen and would not be in contradiction of this statement, is that the landowner can prove extenuating circumstances to avoid paying the fine that comes with the citation.

B.) False, the landowners could still clear the sidewalk before the city has a chance to clear it themselves.

C.) False, we don’t know what the timeframe is that the city can actually clear all of the snow off the sidewalks, just that they have the right to do so after 24 hours.

D.) False, it is trying to bait us into thinking that most will be fined, but we have the conditional that tells us that those that can prove extenuating circumstances will not be fined. We don’t know how many will do this, for all we know most landowners can prove this.

E.) False, we only know that landowners who can prove extenuating circumstances will not be fined, not that they won’t be billed for snow removal.

Some KW’s eat fish exclusively, while others also eat seals. Groups of KW’s “chatter” in distinct dialects, and dialects are different between groups that only eat fish and those that also eat seals. Harbor seals use their ability to distinguish between different dialects to avoid the seal eating KW’s. Marine biologists hypothesize that young harbor seals start with aversion to all killer whales, but then learn to distinguish between the seal eating KW’s and others.

We’re looking for the answer choice that provides the most support for the hypothesis.

A.) Just another group of animals that seal eating KW’s also eat, but does not support the hypothesis.

B.) So harbor seals can hear the chatter at great distances, but most fish can’t. This does not support or further explain how young seals grow to distinguish between the two kinds of KW’s.

C.) Yes - If mature harbor seals get scared off when hearing an unfamiliar dialect, then that gives us reason to believe that young harbor seals do the same. When all dialects are unfamiliar, they stay away from all, but then come to recognize the difference between fish eating and seal eating killer whales.

D.) We’re looking for support that young harbor seals start with an aversion to all killer whales, we’re not interested in learning whether they have aversion to other seal predators.

E.) Sounds tricky, but this is a conditional statement that does not further support the hypothesis. It explains that there are in fact harbor seals that do not show aversion to fish eating killer whales, but does nothing to explain how/if they all start off with a natural aversion to all killer whales.

A biologist explains that many small animals will instinctively go limp when caught by a predator. The biologist wonders why this is the case, seeing as there is little survival value in this act, given that the predator means to eat the animal either way. We’re asked to resolve the apparent paradox in the stimulus.

A.) The answer I chose originally, but why would this explain it? Do we know that there are loud noises or unexpected movements when predators catch these small animals?

B.) This would explain why they would play dead as a survival instinct. If the predator leaves the small animal in a hiding place rather than eating it immediately, then that gives the small animal a chance to get away.

C.) Ok, so what? Where is the survival value in this? And what about the cases where the predator is not common in the area?

D.) If not all species play dead when caught, that still does not explain why some small animals might play dead for survival purposes.

E.) Again, the fact that some animals are capable of fighting off predators does not explain why some choose to play dead.