Mvaillani8, I had a similar thing happen on my prior test. The girl next to me looked ahead and got booted out of the room, which took 3-5 minutes. Unfortunately, it was on RC and it totally made me forget the passage and lose out on 1/4 of the section. On top of which the proctor kept harassing me repeatedly bcs there was no room on my very small desk so put my pencils in my shirt (which she was sure meant I'd stab myself and pushed & pushed me on the issue). My appeal with LSAC got me nowhere - not allowed to retake for free or anything. Simply chose to cancel. Good luck with those folks - they weren't very nice to me.

Nicer, color-coded LSAT timer watch for $25 with free 2-day Prime shipping on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/LSATTimer-Analog-Watch-LSAT-Prep/dp/B006A9SCU0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1391624202&sr=8-1&keywords=180+watch

Regarding the wording "for any social system..." the "any" refers to "any of whom," or "for those who." It refers to a subset of societies that all have in common the introduction of labor saving devices which make certain roles obsolete. The word any does not mean all.

Correct. You got it. These questions can sure spin us around can't they?

If Delacruz already worked for Arvue company, then we have no idea what rule applies. The rule stated in the prompt only applies when none work for Arvue; therefore, neither do or there could be no conclusion.

PGL is a red herring (fluff to get us off track). The conclusion is IF ---> ROL, so we have to use the IF ---> SI to get us there.

Awwww.... (blush)... well, I've just learned that whenever they mention a sample or subset I begin to be suspicious that it may not be representative. The LSAT has used and re-used and re-used again that little trick. The writers are incredibly routine. Rarely do they come up with something new, and after awhile, you just get to quickly recognizing what they're up to...

On point at issue/disagree questions, I do it the opposite way. I read one person's statement, fill in X or √ (usually end up with two choices), then decide between those two by reading the other person's statement. I find that that is quick and easy as I've quickly narrowed my answer choices down to two without too much thought.

I like the discussions being on the same page as the video explanations. Otherwise, we'll have to go searching for the prompt rather than having it right at hand.

Hi Quinn :)

Perhaps the Field Inspectors decided they didn't like the supplier and chose to send an inordinate amount of defective items. Then, the percentage of defective items overall could still be below 5% yet the samples received of defects are in excess of 20%. The problem is that it assumes that the items sent by the Field Inspectors are representative samples of the entire set of items produced, but that may not be true.

I see that JY's video specifically addressed the question that you were ultimately looking for - that a conclusion in the LSAT-world must be accurate and complete in order to be valid (which is #1 in your last post to me). That's a fine point that is important to get in your gullet now before test day.

That being said, what seems obvious to me is that answer C does not completely do the job of filling the gap between premise(s) and the conclusion as NA answers must. If it is necessary to say (answer C) that there are no items that fall between between 1 and 2 (of our 1-2-3 item set), is it then any less necessary to say that there are no items that fall between 2 and 3? Not at all - if one is necessary than the other is at least as necessary.

By definition, NA answers provide the missing required piece/premise that fillls the gap between premise(s) and a conclusion making the argument complete and the conclusion valid. So, it seems that this question is fundamentally flawed, or at least mischaracterized as a NA question when it is actually more like a PSA question. Answer C provides some support for the conclusion by excluding items from one gap and yet failing to likewise exclude the potentiality of items falling between items 2 and 3.

And so I get the point that you were attempting to drive home: this question and its accompanying credited answer choice does not completely exclude other potential items. It fills one gap and leaves another unfilled and for this reason seems to me to be flawed. Perhaps a more apt NA is that there are no other frozen substances on the surface of Pluto that vaporize other than N, M and Cm.

I'm sry - sentence 3 and 4 of para 2 are ref to answer D (not C) - eerggh.. brain not fully engaged before 8am

Hi Wook. I see where you are going with your argument re: answer choice D. The argument we’re presented with is this: we know what the ice is comprised of and since we know the relative frequency of dissipation/vaporization of these components we conclude the likely atmospheric levels of each.

I agree that concluding the percentage of each atmospheric component requires that no outside influence have skewed our results (which is the premise asserted in answer D). However… because N is the most abundant of the gasses already, any gains from other sources could not boost its relative standing vis-a-vis the other components since it’s in position #1 already. That is the problem with answer choice C. Had answer C said the same of N and/or Cm then I would agree that potential outside sources/influences must be ruled out as a necessary condition to our being able to make a conclusion about what comprises the atmosphere – but it didn’t - it was in relation to N only.

As for answer choice C, you misstate the conclusion. Your conclusion “Therefore, the components of Pluto's atmosphere are N, Cm, and M...in some order” is incorrect. The conclusion is that the atmospheric components are N, Cm and M in that order (“in order of decreasing abundance – that is most N, less Cm and still less M). Answer choice C says that there is no surface ice that vaporized at a rate between CM and M. If there had been ice that did so, it would have necessarily been listed in the conclusion. It’s our job to supply the necessary assumption making the conclusion absolutely true and complete. Therefore we must assume that no other ice particle exists that would fit within the gap between Cm and M because if that was so our conclusion would no longer be complete (therefore not completely valid) the job of supporting the conclusion would have failed ... and as Donald Trump would say "you're fired!"

I agree, and you make a good point. Your 1) is inferred and is absolutely true, both as identified in the prompt and from what we know in real life. However, the prompt points to the conclusion that it is questionable whether early warning tests should be available. This dilemma is missed entirely in answer A yet is expressed in Answer B. Test writers often use "true" statements in their answer choices in the hopes of tripping us up, but credited answers are those that fit the argument as a whole not merely a premise or a portion of the prompt.

Rob, I agree this is a really hard question. Questions like this give us examples of those we should be skipping until very last. It's very good practice to begin skipping really hard questions as they are not worth any more points than easier questions. The good thing is that unless you are in the high-170's, you don't need to answer all questions. This is one I'd definitely recommend saving so you can focus on all other questions adequately - no need to waste time on one really hard question that will cause you to rush and get 2 or 3 others wrong.

Well, hello Justin. Thanks for your reply.

I do see why the credited answer is correct, however I was stuck between it and A.

There was no answer choice saying they disagreed about the number of injuries so that's off the table.Answer choice A was about how significant each thought the injuries were. While I agree that the term "significant" is undeterminable, that's not at issue as the term is a relative value judgment between two concepts. How significant each judged the injuries does appear at odds here. The Enthusiast seems to be expressing that the injuries are relatively insignificant given the extreme rise in sales, whereas the Physician says injuries are extremely high/significant. That's why I had a hard time choosing answers here: it's not a matter of specific numbers, simply of value judgment each places on the numbers.

Perhaps you can tell me what I'm not seeing.

I don't get why A could not be the right answer. The Physician says they are quite dangerous & should be supervised. The Enthusiast says that despite sales having gone up 260% injuries went were 154%. Doesn't this mean that the Enthusiast disagrees that "trampolines cause injuries to a significant number of people using them" ?

Hey Pat -- it is absolutely possible. It just seems harder because anytime something's written, there's the "forest for the trees effect" (too many words are necessary). This question would probably take 20-25 seconds to get through -- but I guarantee you that's ONLY because I've practiced & practiced & practiced for months. If it seems hard for you right now, take heart -- we are enrolled in a great program with clear video and text explanations, helpful discussion board.. all that's required on your part is persistence and quite a bit of sitting and practicing over and over again. The LSAT can be beat, that's for sure.

I look back on questions I asked on this discussion board -- in fact I just saw one I asked five months ago -- and I can't even imagine what my thought pattern was at the time I was beginning on 7sage. Just hang in there, it'll come to you in clicks (where it just all of a sudden becomes obvious), and then more clicks, and more clicks, until you're breezing through questions - if you put in the work.

Asking lots of questions helps a lot too. The hardest part of that is letting your guard down. I used to beat myself up a lot for being "stupid" when things didn't just come to me. But it's not a matter of intelligence - this is a learned skill. None of us were born with the ability to automatically work these things out. It's just a process of falling down until you begin to run, and then it becomes lots of fun. These LSAT writers only have so many tricks up their sleeves. You will get used to them in time and adept at side-stepping. So, yeah, hang in there.

Hi Pat. Daniel says for an action to be good it requires the "right motivations" MG --> RM. Carrie says our motivations are beyond our control (so RM is unnecessary, or MG --> /RM) - and the only thing necessary for a MG act is that it fulfill an obligation MG --> FO.

Answer D says: WM ---> /MG [contra MG --> /WM] and in this bilateral not-wrong = right, so answer D is saying MG --> RM.

You could use the chart. Daniel can clearly be marked Agree since MG --> RM is exactly what he said, and Carrie marked Not-Agree since she right or wrong motivations is irrelevant in judging motivations.

The conclusion doesn't "fail" to include the possibility that she used none of the three methods as stated in answer D. It specifically says just that.

While I agree that answer C provides the necessary bridge. However, if (answer A) youth do not accurately discern whether their society is changing, then the amount of deference they give may not be an accurate gauge of the rate at which society is changing. Hmmm...?? This is analogous to our saying that we can measure the distance of a pencil using a ruler, but what if that ruler were a poor indicator of actual distance, then our conclusion falls apart, correct?

I agree that answer E is the best illustration. But would also like to note that the language in which a judge presents jury instructions can bolster his "perceived status" in the minds of jurors, making answer B also a possiiblity. If I went to a medical clinic and someone came in to treat me and if that person used language way above my head I might assume that that person was of a higher status (i.e., doctor) than perhaps a CMA - and would perhaps give more credence to what he/she said. So, maybe this question is not the best in that it can be said that answer B could also be (and even is likely to be) true.

Okay, thank you - that's really clear. The correct answer was immediately obvious just by listening to the very first part of the video. I had diagrammed it correctly, just wasn't sure about how to negate it.

Also, thank you for the reminder about how to deal with embedded conditionals.

I couldn't follow how the diagramming was done on this video.

Hi Alyson, this question ("the argument 'leads' to the conclusion that...") is asking us to supply the missing conclusion that all the statements in the prompt are pointing to. It's not asking us to find conclusions or intermediate conclusions in the prompt. Everything in the prompt leads to the the conclusion that the train station in Outerville should be renovated. That's why answer B is correct.