I most certainly was not kidding. I thought Martian meant extraterrestrial being, as Martians are depicted on TV as being aliens.

The beginning of the "to point out that such..." sentence took me 10 minutes to understand and I am still confused lol.

PSA: I got this question wrong because I was applying the stimulus principle of "more enjoyment → more practice." However, that wasn't the analysis. The analysis was "success in meeting the first objective will bring about success in meeting the second objective."

Remember to only apply the analysis!

*Insert laughing face" It would take me more than 35 minutes to figure out this question alone lol.

Medical books → Fewer doc visits

Improved health → Fewer doc visits

Therefore, Medical books → Improved health

D: "Two different states of affairs (Medical books and Improved health) could each casually contribute to the same effect (Fewer doc visits) even though neither causally contributes to the other."

If the abstract expressionist painting is aesthetically BETTER than the preschooler painting, than in order to conclude the abstract expressionist painting is aesthetically PLEASING, the preschoolers painting must have some degree of aesthetic pleasure. This leads us to B: "Most of the preschoolers paintings used in the study were not aesthetically displeasing."

I think this question is way harder than a 3/5! The wording of C makes it hard to see that it is the correct answer. If C removed the bit about TBT killing imported varieties and just said "imported varieties live in the water and they flourish at the expense of native species," then it would have been easier to see. However, when I read C I thought, "well imported species cannot be killing the native species because TBT killed off all of the imported species."

Ugh..

Idk why but when I did this question for a PT I was lost. I guess I didn't understand the stimulus so I was hooped for the answer choices. But after JY quickly explained the stimulus, I immediately selected D.

The reason I chose E over C was due to the strong wording in C. I was taught that generally speaking assumption questions prefer weak language. So when I was down to C and E, I ultimately chose E. I am not sure why the strong language in C is preferable in this question - I am stumped on that too!

Yes, I run out of time on every section. As an example, on my recent test I got 14 wrong on RC, 11 wrong on LR, and 7 wrong on LG. When I did blind review I got 9 wrong on RC, 5 wrong on LR, and 3 wrong on LG. So, what is my problem? Is this 10+ point difference between real prep test and blind review normal? What can I do?

I am in the same boat except I am continuously scoring 151, and my blind review score is 163. I have gone through all of PowerScore materials, all of 7Sage, and have even met with a tutor for many hours. How do I improve my score? Any help is appreciated.

#help#help I get that the first part of D "the obligation created by a promise" is necessary. However, why is it necessary that the obligation is not relived if the promise cannot be kept?" This is not stated anywhere in the stimulus.

Ought to do something = Obligation to do it.

#help Okay, I believe I am correct in saying that the ethicists assumption is that a promise to meet a friend at a certain time is an obligation. Promise = obligation, which connects the example to the ethicists argument. And D is supposed to explain this assumption, correct? I do not get how D does that.

This question was lost on me. I was so confused.

My issue is timing too. I am also taking the January exam. The best advice I think is to drill, drill, drill. I can get nearly 100% on the LSAT if I do it untimed. My timed I get like 152.

I think only drilling will help us.

It seems like most people including myself are confused with A. I will tell you why I think A is wrong:

A is proposing a hypothetical world different from the one we are in with the stimulus. In A's hypothetical world, the subjects are always guessing that the next image appears at the top. A goes onto say that this guessing is not based on any sequence that the subjects believe they saw. But how are we to know from our stimulus that in the hypothetical world the subjects do not believe they see a pattern? We do not know anything about this hypothetical world, and we cannot say for certain what the subjects in this world believe. As soon as A states "if the subjects had always guessed top," we know it is wrong because the stimulus cannot prove anything with respect to the subjects only guessing top. The stimulus only mentions the pattern the subjects thought they saw with respect to their original guessing strategy.

You must remember that in a must be true you are using the STIMULUS to prove the answer choice. Support is going from the stimulus down to the answer choice. And nothing in the stimulus supports A, because nothing in the stimulus talks about this hypothetical world.

Hi! I am in the exact same boat and I am interested!

"If, but only if" is a bi-conditional indicator. If you see that phrase it means you are dealing with a double sided arrow. What this technically means in terms of logic is that both conditions are sufficient and both conditions are necessary. So it would look like this:

life is likely to present ↔ life evolved

#feedback (No hate to JY, I love 7Sage) When JY was going over C and D for question 25, I felt like the explanation was not thorough enough. JY was pretty much advising just to guess (trusting your "psychological reaction" is pretty much just guessing as you cannot say for sure if it is right or wrong). With that said, how do 170+ test takers get these questions right? Do they remember everything that was stated in the passage? If we do not remember if something was stated in the passage, are we pretty much hooped? Do we need to guess? Or is there a way to figure it out? For example, the newer tests allow students to use the F search feature - could that help in a question like this?

Thank you!

#help Is this question a part-to-whole flaw? The author takes a fact about identical twins, and then applies it to everybody by stating "many of our inclinations must be genetic in origin."

I agree. However, I think the "in order to differentiate themselves" is subconscious in the twins, and stems from a desire to be dissimilar, which weakens the conclusion.

I interpreted it as twins are the same but they trying to act different because they do not want to be the same. And if anything this would strengthen the conclusion, no?