Man. I got fooled by (C).

The easiest way for me to solve this question is to diagram:

deficiency in calcium -> rise in blood pressure

deficiency in vitamin D -> rise in blood pressure

The conclusion here closes the gap between the first conditional statement, while neglecting the second.

I noticed the gaps here and was able to eliminate the other answer choices leaving (A) and (C) as contenders, and I ending up choosing (C). My line of thinking was that if deficiency in calcium doesn't contribute to the deficiency in vitamin D, then this negates the second conditional assertion. But this is not true. Even if the milk doesn't necessarily contribute to the deficiency of vitamin D, the possibility of the deficiency in vitamin D leading to the rise in blood pressure is still there. Thus, the gap between the second conditional is still there.

Question 5 is a low blow...

This question fools me every time. The argument and the ACs leading to (D) sets up the perfect trap to pass by this answer choice without REALLY considering its relevance to the argument. As much as I despise this question, I have to admit that it leaves me in awe of the LSAT writers...

EBOLA!

amen.

@ hey how much was it for david busis to review if you don't mind me asking?

Looking back at this question, I can see why D is right while A is incorrect.

If you strip the argument down to its bare core of premise and conclusion, then the TCR becomes obvious.

James' conclusion is not explicitly mentioned but can be understood as stating/arguing that the voting public can evaluate complex campaign issues.

P: Reade discusses complex issues + he is more popular than the others

C: voting public can evaluate complex campaign issues

I believe when the argument is written out like this the flaw becomes pretty apparent. Does being more popular necessarily mean the population can evaluate complex campaign issues? This premise barely, if at all, supports his conclusion.

So Maria calls James out on his poor/weak argument. And like most lsat arguments, she first concedes James' premise then goes on to show how it does not lead to his conclusion.

P: yes he is more popular + but he could just seem more competent and trustworthy

C: thus, just being more popular does not mean the the public can evaluate the issues. Instead, his popularity can be due to other reasons.

Essentially, they are arguing for or against the idea that being more popular means ( ->) the voting public are able to evaluate the complex issues. As such, (A) is pretty much irrelevant to the arguments at hand. Who cares about what others do? The argument revolves around whether popularity is indicative of publics ability to evaluate.

Dang. Sounds like a fun party

wow. My mind drew a blank for this question. I don't know why but I ended up translating "not" as negate necessary. Not sure where this lawgic translation came from...

Awesome. Thanks JY!!

-_-

I ended up eliminating (B) because of the phrase "approve their own character." Does the phrase "one's sense of approval of one's character and projects" mean their approval of themselves? I read it to mean "one's sense of approval that they feel they get from other people regarding their character and projects"... :(

Aww... Thanks though!!

"After all" should also indicate that the sentence immediately preceding it is the conclusion.

The conclusion is saying that the risk is "likely" to increase. The conclusion isn't absolute. Does that help?

For parallel questions, would it be okay to eliminate an answer choice based on whether it is or isn't subjective/descriptive? Like this stimulus is just descriptive, so is it correct to eliminate D and E based on its subjective conclusion?

I think (C) is also wrong because the focus of the passage is not on the "production" of the perfumes, rather the value ascribed to it by professionals?

@ M wow! A 175 on your first PT after learning the basics is awesome! Also, sadly, not very relatable. lol

Scoring in that range, it seems like your RC and LR scores were pretty spectacular to begin with. But in your opinion, how did you improve your RC skills?

Wow. This is great Allison :)

If you don't mind me asking, how did you study for the test? What was your weakest section and how did you overcome that? Did you retake or do well the first time around?

Is (E) is incorrect because it is referring to the two sufficient conditions as exclusive when in it should be considered as inclusive?

PI or 500+ -> RA

contrapositive:

/RA -> /PI AND /500+

So if it instead read as "No one was injured in the accident AND the accident did not lead to property damage exceeding $500" it would be correct?

So would (C) be right if it said "Satisfaction with income is strongly correlated with THEIR neighborhood?"

Okay. I found this passage difficult because of the last paragraph of passage B. The third paragraph states that the article is arguing for not taxing in game assets. Then the next passage goes on to say "by contrast..." I don't get the point of this caveat placed at the end of the passage. It doesn't really seem to fit the overall argument.

Why would the author place this at the end? Wouldn't it be more logical if this paragraph was switched with the third paragraph? Or maybe a sentence stating something like "and since these online games are just for fun, they do not need to be taxed.." inserted at the end?

hahaha. What's up with the link to Call Me Maybe? I don't get it...I ended up watching the entire video thinking that maybe there was something...

I have no idea why I go this question wrong. I had a brain fart or something. I just couldn't wrap my head around the argument... sigh

Good luck everyone! May the LSAT gods be ever in your favor

Where can I find the answers to the test?? I can't find it :(