I m feeling down too as I stopped for now

When and what time?

#help I listened explanation to AC D Question 9 almost 10 times and don't understand, why D is wrong?????

I chose D because I thought and still I think this is a better AC. Better law enforcement helped with fatalities.

Let's say you passed a law but everyone is ignoring it. In order a law to work you need to enforce it, for instance, putting camera and speed detectors, putting patrols on the road, etc.

So, why am I wrong?

I see everyone just say E is right but it contradicts premises.

I might be late but I am interested

I needed this. Thank you

This was so hard, I am not sure it was 1-4, seems it was 5th level of difficulty.

This was so hard. In SA questions as I understood you need to Find a connecting link between Premise and Conclusion and only B does it.

Premise is talking only about such a phenomenon as Forest fires that have many good consequences.

Conclusion ads human beings being wrong to stop those fires.

Thus, a right AC should connect the premise and conclusion (human beings and their attempts to stop fires) giving a linking bridge in between.

A is wrong because there is no link with f. fires

B is right tells why people want to intervene into the natural process. Further conclusion says: hey, people, you are all wrong trying to stop fires.

C and E each wrong because they do not have the connection required.

Hei, do you have a recording! I need it! Missed this chat(((((

#help

I don't understand this explanation

ehh, have no idea why B is wrong?

#help (Added by Admin)

This is so tough. Basic strategy for all NA question is to find a missing premise that is in between Premise and main conclusion.

Premise:

Hobby helps to overcome loneliness for shy

If shy person loses interest in Hobby, his loneliness grows

Conclusion:

Developing hobby is not a successful strategy to overcome loneliness.

NA is what is missing:

If hobby was successful strategy, it will not let the loneliness to grow which is AC B.

Something like that. All NA is so understandable, may be need more practice, uuhhhh...

"Merits of opponent's argument" under D. Where is the argument itself to say that it has merits? May be it is another and more flawed argument?! So, why D is right?

#help (Added by Admin)

#help

Can anyone please help me to understand why B in Q. 8 is correct. My problem is I am not understanding what part of passage is equivalent to words "combination of training in....."intellectual history". Why we infer that there is not enough knowledge in intellectual history? I might be wrong but ..... please #help to understand, really appreciate a help.

I am wondering, before you take the test, do you have a sort of preliminary call to show your room where you take the test? May be at this stage they advise you what to move or cover?

Q. 3 is not explained well. I chose B because ''individual rights define limits to on another''. That means that, for example, your right to life is limited with someone's obligation not to kill you, or your right to vote may not be infringed by someone else what makes B being a right AC.

A doesn't look right as passage does not mention people's obligation to one another.

I have "love and hate" relationships with LSAT

I am sorry, don't want to say anything disrespectful but I am not satisfied with explanation here. Listened to 10 times already. Coming up with my own thoughts.

The idea here is to establish why telescopes didn't notice the break by November although the comet became bright.

First thing to understand is that the Brightness is a result of dust and gas after break (according to the passage).

A - wrong because it doesn't explain why comet was so bright, if gas and dust comes later than Break. Contradiction here because Brightness is a result of break, gas...

B - doesn't answer, why telescopes didn't notice break? It explains why how brightness is created by refraction.

C - yes, because telescopes "thought": "oh this is just an every day gas and dust, no more anything unusual", so the telescopes didn't see anything unusual here and missed the break.

D - even if the gas and dust increased steadily, why telescoped didn't notice a break until November?

E - explains why the break happened.

I understand why C is correct but still not a good response why A is not correct? As the passage says: there are "few of the numerous articles.. that are superior" which means the rest is not (=average, or worse). Argument ignores existence of superior articles and goes to circular reasoning.

Really don't understand why C is right. I chose A because the passage talks about the dull companion who gets wrong interpretations. My answer choice A was logical that Detective (a smart guy) should find a correct solution to the puzzle. The term "most" means 50 - 100% chances. So ''often'' to me is correlated with the term "Most" which is used in AC A.

Damage to the self-esteem makes people being less confident especially when it happens in childhood. You tell your child you are wrong, whatever you do is bad, etc, throw him out of the house. As a result child loses confidence. Plus people around (neighbors, school) treat him bad knowing he is thrown out of the house. So, child is unsecure. A looks correct to me. Damage to self esteem done by people and home, first of all, makes a child being less confident. A can not be so easily eliminated. However, may be this is not only a home where he is punished. Significant or not this loss (under E) depends on child. Looks like A is right but E is good too.

Answer to Q. 27 is not explained well. B in my opinion is very close to the right AC but at the same time, passage doesn't state that judges initially were opposed to contractual rights. They were simply ignoring it. We can assume they had been against women rights as afterwards they issued contrary decisions which makes B very strong.

D is not represented anywhere which makes it close to B. It has a way too big assumption.

I didn't understand # 14!

I would call and ask. Please let us know too. I had idea take different colors too

#help

I understand the point JY makes about right AC C but the same time,

when you negate Sufficient, it doesn't follow that Necessary is also negated.

If A → B

not B→A

but

A means that argument falls apart. And B can still be a B.

A → B

A

B

So, why in that case we do not follow this logic rule?