got this one wrong since I took "all BUT impossible to achieve" to mean that he thinks it's attainable because it is not impossible. When it really means almost impossible to achieve in this context. Google search rendered that all but has two meanings "All but" is an idiomatic phrase with two main meanings: it means almost/nearly (when followed by an adjective or verb) or everyone/everything except (when followed by a noun). Tricky.

did not make the connection that usually can mean most so got this one wrong

@Epicness also any is a sufficent indicator and so is if

saw someone say earlier to use the highlight technique, and it's actually really helpful. stilll getting the hang of it, but it allows you to fully see the argument structure. I highlight the premises in yellow and the conclusion in pink.

@StevenShan so the false consequence is that everyone would be using it because in reality everyone is actually not using it

Chose D. I now know it is wrong since I translated it in lawgic the other way around. I assumed it was can participate --> one year or more than one year when it is actually graphed one year or more --> can participate the all in the beginning is a bit confusing. So you really have to parse out the language to understand it and graph it correctly.

took wayyyyyy to long

Even just doing shallow dipping for the conclusion and premises allowed me to remove three AC's. only had to graph one, which was not the match, so I automatically chose the remaining one, and it was correct.

@alexmalikian1298 The author never argues though that "It is generally more important for a medicine than it is for a nonmedical product to be carefully tested to ensure its safety" that is an assumption the test taker makes so we don't know if this principle/rule is even something the author would agree with.

I think the key to understanding and getting this Q correct is recognizing the difference between the excavators (those who illegally dug out the terra cotta sculptures) and the foreign collectors (those who bought the illegally excavated terra cotta sculptures). The stimulus is asking us how we think the author feels about the collectors, NOT the excavators. The only thing the author tells us about the collectors is that they "rightly admired them," that is all, nothing more and nothing less (one can verify through ctrl f). I can see why one would choose C or D if they assumed the question was asking about the excavators, or they weren't able to make that distinction between excavators and foreign collectors.

@MarkTorres an example of a whole to part flaw would be something along the line of social theorists are the smartest group of theorists out there, therefore everyone that is a social theorist is smarter than everyone else. just because the whole group of social theorists collectively are the smartest among all theorists does not mean they are all individually the smartest people. our stimulus argument doesn't do anything similar to this they just say the social theorists that believe one thing evidently believe that democracy is futile. No where in the argument does the author make a statement about the whole of social theorists who believe democracy is futile and than go on to make an assumption about those individually within the set.

I can see how someone can get this wrong by not knowing wha a spleen is if someone assumes it may be a muscle they can incorrectly cross off B as the correct answer.

@LiviaLSAT I think a sub conclusion can interchangably be referred to a statement as well but a statement that is purely a statement cannot be referred to as a sub conclusion

In LSAT logical reasoning, "qualifies" means to limit, restrict, or modify a claim, making it less absolute or sweeping. A qualified statement adds caveats or exceptions, reducing its scope from a broad generalisation to a more precise, narrow statement, often using words like "sometimes" or "often".

@AnaColuma "it probably does" is the conclusion. there can only be one conclusion and if a statement lends support, then it is automatically not a conclusion. "Driving position affects both comfort and the ability to see the road clearly," supports the idea that "it probably does (position of a car drivers seat impacts driver safety)"

Got this right on negation. If no films from the earliest year of Hollywood currently exist solely in their original material, which if true colllapses the argument. If no early years of Hollywood films exsist in their original material that is unstable and deteriorating nitrate film, then the conclusion does not apply since there is NO films to even have to preserve.

13/13 but over time

So on the actual LSAT we have a text box we can use in reading comp section? thats works similar to ctrl f?

@iriswu84153 well at least NA and SA are not the top 3 most common question types

So, for a necessary assumption question, there can be a wrong answer that makes an argument logically valid IF say there is a separate answer choice that is weaker and may not make the argument logically follow but is necessary even to consider the argument.

@epayne17 god forbid people celebrate there success

5/5 but wayyyyyyy overtime

@epayne17 damn tough crowd

The rule says the three things are sufficient, not required.

The rule is:

If (Eligible + Saved a life + Went beyond expectations) → Award

That means:

• If all three happen → the award must happen ✔️

• But if one is missing → we cannot say the award won’t happen ❌

Because the rule never said:

ONLY IF these three happen → aw

So this basically just boils down to just because these three conditions are sufficient to get the award, it is not NEEDED there can be other avenues to get the award. So not qualifying one does not automatically disqualify Penn from receiving the award because potentially he can receive the award from a different avenue. making AC E. and B. wrong. The easiest way to make sure Penn does not get the award basically would just be to make sure he is not even eligible which is why AC A is correct.