This is a very poorly designed question from the start imo. Isn't it also necessary to assume that the cost, if any, of the company using a collection agency is the same as pursuing debtors on it's own? It could be that a company pursuing debtors on its own collects 20% of the total outstanding amount but the cost of doing so is 15% of the total amount, whereas the collection agency pays 15% of what they collect upfront with no fee.

Similar to the cost, you additionally have to assume that the collection agency and company itself both have the exact same success rate in collecting total owed fees. We only are given that the collection agency will give 15% of what they collect back to the company. How much they are capable of actually collecting is unknown. If they only collect for example 50% of fees, 15% of that 50% is 7.5% of the total amount. In the event that the company can collect all fees by itself, why is it then necessary that the company itself collect more than 15% of the total amount, when anything greater than 7.5% would suffice? AC A only mathematically works if you overlook costs and then make the unwarranted assumption the the proportion debtors who will pay up will be the same no matter who is pursuing.

Wow how brilliantly intuitive! Why stop there, let's deduct a point every time you highlight something. While we're at it lets attach a shock collar to every test taker that triggers automatically every time you flag or go back to a question.

I wouldn't worry about PT score variations too much, probably learn or relearn the basics of the test like conditional logic first

I disagree with A's explanation, it doesn't "prove" anything. I feel like A only very weakly weakens the argument. You would have to assume the rate at which new species emerged and went extinct in 1970 is somewhat characteristic of that of the last several centuries. Almost feels like a trap

Did anyone else interpret D as nonsterilized food was preserved by an acceptable method (which may be sterilizing and sealing) instead of "nonsterilized" being a property of the food preserved by an acceptable method (pointing towards slowing disease-causing bacteria growth technique). Man I keep getting cooked like this

Why does rejecting a hypothesis going against tradition necessarily mean you are accepting the traditional hypothesis? Can't you be cautious of both?

What if Clovis points were in fact invented in North America but were carried back to Siberia via the Berling land bridge shortly before it disappeared? That would make it plausible that all Clovis points found in Siberia are older than that of NA but they were still invented in NA. I thought B prevents this conclusion so I went with it.

Who the hell words a question like this? Why not just say "related" instead of "not parallel"?

So the "belief is false" means the contents of the belief is false and not that holding the belief is false? How do you logically distinguish the 2?

So B essentially attacks the premises but all other answer choices are wrong? Ok. At least I haven't seen any questions as dumb as this one on more recent PTs (might be coping)

@calliekoskovich I agree with you, there may simply be more Mexican writers whose work is concerned with urban themes compared to writers of "regional literature", which explains why the former group has more reputation and success in the prominent literature establishment in Mexico City. That the latter group find more "difficulty" in finding the same success is pure extrapolation and even weaker than C imo.

Nah, I straight up disagree. In fact, I've never disagreed with a question more. I still believe AC C to be the correct answer. In no way does being "expected to do so in ways that entertain a broad audience" invariably lead to psychotherapists actually fulfilling this expectation, nor does the stimulus show how often this expectation is satisfied. A psychotherapist can simply choose to not accede to this expectation and provide high quality psychotherapy on a talk show, preventing the conclusion of "psychotherapists should never provide psychotherapy on talk shows" from being established.

C allows the conclusion to be properly drawn, because it states that psychotherapy should never be given in a context where there is any chance it is less than high quality, in which the expectation to entertain a broad audience fulfils that chance. E does not allow the conclusion to be properly drawn, because as aforementioned, psychotherapists can provide psychological help in a manner that DOES make it likely to be high quality (without acceding to the expectation of entertaining a broad audience), on a talk show. The conclusion does not follow.

AC A stating Passage A “provides no details” is wholly counterintuitive. Without knowing that the test writers mean “detailed examples/applications” when they say “details”, almost everybody would believe that details here meant the specifics of the principle of theory of justice regarding property, which are mentioned.

Is the "its" in "its being released" for AC D a typo? "It" is referring to the report, but what property of the report would "its" be referring to? That kind of threw me off.

son

Terrible question. How is increased employment necessary for additional earnings or relevant at all for that matter? Lets just take a real life example, if Jeff Bezos survived a serious injury and proceeds to layoff tens of thousands of Amazon workers, there would obviously be a net decrease in employment but his additional earnings would greatly outweigh the contributions of those tens of thousands of Amazon workers had he not survived and they haven't been fired. Increased employment is pure extrapolation, case in point.

Some of these questions genuinely make me wonder, do the test makers at LSAC live in their own realities? Or are they trying to maintain some sort of agenda? Either way, questions like this punish critical thinking and general knowledge while rewarding making convenient assumptions.

Quite confused by this. What does "overly severe and lenient punishment" mean exactly here? The argument establishes that punishments should never be mitigated on the basis of motivation, so doesn't erring on the side of overly severe or lenient punishment imply that the motivations of criminals actually holds weight in how severe a punishment should be (when it shouldn't have any weight)?

@MatthewTodd "Because freelance writers are workers".

Your argument presupposes in a premise the conclusion it attempts to establish.

Bad question. Its not stated nor implied that transportation costs being more expensive is an impediment to being profitable. Its not intuitive either so it seems like a wholly unwarranted assumption to me.

Yet another question that depends entirely on your knowledge of what one word means, in this case "generation", great!!! I love these types of questions!!! Why not just replace an entire LR section with a vocabulary test?

"Mistaken about its beneficial effects for society" is a very weird way to say "mistaken about it (etiquette) having no beneficial effects for society. That threw me off

How does one reasonably solve this question without knowing the exact meaning of "dissolved" in this specific context? What even is the point of using "dissolved"? The question could've easily used "carried" instead in that the core's isotopes were carried by steam (into the atmosphere) then this question would actually be effective in testing LR rather than testing esoteric knowledge of one word.

I mean C is the "best" answer but the stimulus also says fish from experimental hatcheries explore new environments on top of trying new food. So even if no fish died because they are too timid in foraging for food, can't fish from experimental fish hatcheries be more likely to survive only because they are more likely to explore new environments, and thus avoid predators and whatnot? That's the main reason I switched to B which is definitely wrong but C just feels like an obvious trap for a required assumption question.

#help

Another question that requires the reader to know precisely what a term is, in this case "distribution costs". The transportation costs for customers of these farms does not count as their distribution costs. This is why I love LSAT!!! Learn something new almost every time you practice!!!! <3

Ok, but eye witnesses can be suspects? Am I just supposed to know to disregard that?