probably the most convoluted language i've seen on the LSAT. i picked E initially, because it clicked, but second-guessed myself for no reason and went back for B. boo!!!

I picked E because i took the "source" to be his friends, who are probably not well-informed enough to make the claim that the driver will one day have an accident. But now i see that A is better, because it describes the causal flaw, which leads the driver to conclude that "trading my sports car for a minivan...lower risk". I guess E doesn't really describe the mistaken assumption upon which the speaker goes from interpreting his research to drawing his conclusion.

I was tempted by A, but didn't pick it because of the word "radically". Let's say if we took out that word -- the choice is still not the correct answer, because although it's a conceivable and "consistent" EXPLANATION for the phenomenon, it's not "supported"? In other words, based on the text, it could be true, but need not be true in the "must" sense?

--

--

@, i'll be 26 if i were to start this september, so i'll be 29 when i finish. personally, having children is another one of my top life priorities and, as a female, i do have to think about my decreasing fertility. my goal has never been to make a lot of money nor to work for "big law," so i'm willing to settle for a good lsat score and an OK school.

i'm in the same boat @ and @. as far as i know, for canadian schools, the letters are no longer valid. personally, i can't spend another year of my life on this. i'm 25 (female) and i feel like i'll be too old once i finish, so i need to get into any school ASAP. i think i'm just going to force myself to do well on the february... is this a good strategy?

So basically the bacteria = biomarkers, which =/= plants and animals. Bacteria and biomarkers are consistent with carbon deposits, but plants and animals would implicate the dominant theory. Is this right??

During the test, answer D seemed suspicious, but I couldn't make that connection between bacteria and biomarkers. I actually thought bacteria was a subset of plants and animals, and thought this D slightly strengthened the conclusion. If "plants/animals/bacteria" are found deep in the earth, where the carbon deposits are purported to have contributed to the formation of petroleum, then finding a subset of "plants and animals" deep in the earth would would undermine the theory about carbon -- which is also deep in the earth. That is, even deep in the earth where carbon was supposed to have made petroleum, there is this subset of "plants and animals" -- so maybe it was this subset (bacteria) after all? I guess this line of reasoning is making too many assumptions?