I did my exam this morning, overall fair test, I wish everyone the best! Don't forget to bring water haha doing the LSAT dehydrated was not a vibe. Just treat the actual exam like a prep test and you will be fine. Don't get paralyzed, and if you do, it's normal, just remember that you've got this. Good luck all!

Lol I thought it asked a flaw in Mr. Klemer's argument. Reminder to read the question properly.

Why did I think that "the rise of a political organization" was something like a popular revolution... Didn't think it was referring to "popular support for various parties"

As someone who comes from an extremely multicultural city (Montreal), I cannot even imagine that people of a certain ethnicity need to eat food coming from their country. Hence why I didn't consider E. What an ignorant question. But I see why C is wrong.

How is C wrong... the mayor isn't trying to establish importance, he is trying to HELP establish importance (answer choice C). And this argument part does that, while not being actual evidence for the conclusion. #help

I was in-between C and D under timed constraint... but I eliminated D because, is it really a "general claim"? I've seen many AP questions like this, where one of the answer choice is saying that the AP is a general claim. And many times, even when the AP was even more general than here, it was not the right AC. I am confused... C seems like a better ac overall, unless I am missing something.

I still don't get how C is wrong. If some banks used to lend to financially weak companies, and not just the financially strong ones, doesn't that increase the size of the pie?

Anyways, I see how A is right and how it addresses the stimulus more. We're saying that banks' lending rates are always greater than or equal to their borrowing rate (lending rates > borrowing rates). Which means that currently, because borrowing rate > lending rate for large companies, they CANT lend to large companies. So yes, the pie does shrink.

Me, about to earn an Economics degree in a few months, also have been working in a bank for 2 years, getting this question wrong...

Would D be right if it said that the author confuses something necessary with sufficient?

It is sufficient to say that there's more than 1 part per house, but it's not necessary.

(Still confused as to how "more than 1" doesn't encompass "more than 3" but oh well)

#help (added by Admin)

Henry talks about URBAN pollution, Umit just talks about pollution in general, so yes A is right

NVM, the question is asking for a sufficient assumption. Assuming that last year's strains remained the same or increased in number is def sufficient to say that the total for this year increased.

I thought all of them were wrong then panic-picked C.

I thought E was wrong because what if the new strains outnumber the old ones, allowing for the old ones to decline while increasing the total number of flu strains?

What if we started with 10 old strains. Then we get 1000 new strains. Couldn't old strains decrease to, say, 5 old strains? We'd still have an increase of 995? Am I missing something?

129 - 176 curve lol says a lot about this question

I'm still confused why D is incorrect. I thought this was a pseudo-sufficient assumption question. Isn't the right AC supposed to be a principle, usually one that is phrased generally, that makes the assumption just shy of true validity? The stimulus does mention that the country shouldn't sign because it would hinder its economy AND OTHERS. If this was a strengthen question, I would see how B is right.

What a tough one. I didn't catch that the question stem is talking about a play ABOUT ancient Greece. The play in question could have been performed in 2023, ABOUT ancient Greek life. D is making a claim about ancient Greece in general, which is not what we're talking about. It's super unreasonable to assume that this one play can make a general claim about its subject (ancient Greece).

I think you're wrong, because the play is ABOUT ancient Greece, it didn't happen during ancient Greece

Galindo is responding to Fremont.

Fremont claims that background experience is a necessary condition for success

Galindo retorts that background experience is not a sufficient condition for success

Hence, C is right.

For flaw questions, watch out for causation claims. If the stimulus, in any way shape or form, claims causation, there's a 99.99% chance that it is the flaw.

Edit: Answer choice A is clearly wrong because it does nothing to resolve the discrepancy. I don't like JY's explanation though.

Just because there's more prey species doesn't mean that they will outnumber the predators and survive for long (an assumption you need to make if you choose A). Let's say there's twice as many zebras as there are lions. What if 1 lion eats 1000 zebras? The rate at which preys/predators survive is also irrelevant to the stimulus.

Every other choice doesn't make sense, so by POE you need to choose C.

Lol the curve on this question is 128-171. Shows that this question is insane.

For those who picked D: You picked an AC that merely presents an additional flaw. Don't fall for this in future "flaw" questions!

Don't confuse "inaccurate" with "unreliable"

Also, we need to assume that flight reports by pilots are subjective...

"It denies a claim that the argument takes to be assumed in the reasoning that it rejects"

Okay let's break this down.

"It" refers to the claim that "willingness to pay is not proportional to need"

What is the reasoning that "it" rejects? That price gouging is efficient.

What is assumed in this reasoning? The claim that willingness to pay is proportional to need.

So yes, "willingness to pay is not proportional to need" denies a claim (willingness to pay is proportional to need) that the argument takes to be assumed in the reasoning that it rejects (the reasoning that it rejects is that price gouging is efficient).

Honestly POE would have helped me more for this question, especially under timed condition.

Note to self: Don't focus too much on how the statements are worded; words will only get you so far in the LSAT. You need to be comfortable making inferences. On AC C, Nick would say "yes" and Pincus would say "no". There is a clear disagreement here. Can't say the same for A.

For strengthening questions, it is SO helpful to determine what the main conclusion is and what premises lead to it. Your goal is always to strengthen the "arrow" between premises and conclusion (premises --> conclusion). Here, the MC is that more snow/ice leads to colder temperature. C strengthens because it's saying that water/land (lack of snow/ice) leads to warmer temps for other reasons than mentioned in the argument.

Skiff's book will not be published unless it is as important and well written as he claims it is:

Group 3 translation group (pick either idea, negate that idea, make that idea the sufficient)

Book will be published --> It is as important and well written as he claims it is

This is reverse logic.