Since D is restating what's already provided in the stimmy rather than giving an explanation for the characteristic?

If I understood that properly, that makes sense, thank you!

Part of my confusion here is differentiating between repressors' characteristics. I understand why AC D can be chosen off the basis of the nested claim, but I don't understand how I was supposed to differentiate between "characteristics of repressors" (which I though would include "tend to repress to maintain social/academic success) vs "characteristics of repressors that bring forth advantage." #help

BUT for the sake of my own character development, here's how I understood the difference between B & D:

The main conclusion in the stimulus is: "It is a mistake, however, to assume that answering the question is essential to improving the economy."

In lawgic this can be mapped as:

not (improving econ -> answer question)

We'll have to find an AC that gives us this mapping/meaning.

AC ANALYSIS

B) though the word "necessary" in this AC will serve as a perfect trap for anyone who thought there's no way LSAC would make a Q3 convoluted, the AC actually reads:

"Knowing the cause of the current recession would not necessarily enable people to find a solution for it"

If A necessarily enables B, that is the same as saying that A guarantees B, or that A is sufficient for B. If A necessarily enables B, we know that every instance of A will bring a B with it. This would be mapped as A -> B. Since there is a "not" before "necessarily," the negated conditional statement would read

not (A -> B)

not (knowing the cause -> find solution)

knowing the cause = "answering question" from our MC

find solution = "improving economy" from our MC

so whereas the MC we're looking for is mapped like this:

not (improving econ -> answer question)

not (B -> A)

AC B reads as

not (answering question -> improving econ)

not (A -> B)

sneaky sneaky, no cookie for you LSAC

B vs. D makes me want to throw up

You analysis of the correct answer was super helpful, plus I've always loved medieval lit and this was a fun read. Thanks on both accounts :)

I initially concluded that 2 billion years ago, the ocean would have to be frozen (given that's what would happen today) so I then operated on the assumption that there was a time (3.8 billion years ago) that the oceans were liquid and had life, then at 2B years ago the oceans froze, and then at some point since then the oceans melted. Definitely an assumption I should not have made. I think the key here is reading the stimmy and realizing that there is nothing to suggest that the sun's dimness and its effect on our oceans can be 1 to 1 compared with 2 billion years ago. The stimmy seems contradictory because we make an assumption that the two time periods would respond the same to a 30% dimmer sun, but that's not the case and AC A gives us a reason as to why the two time periods can't be compared in such a way. neat dude

@jhbm_nyc you nailed this. Phenomenal explanation, thank you!

Honestly, I didn't understand why the stimulus randomly jumped to urban agricultural production as a solution, because I didn't see the relation between that and the migration problem. Thing is, I think that's the point, because C then bridges the gap between the two parts of the stimulus by telling us that agricultural problems would result from the migration, which would then bring some clarity as to why the economists asserted that urban pops should produce goods.

you're so funny, and you hit the nail on the head (Vegas head?) with this. Hope you wrecked your LSAT

Though it's difficult, I think that this is an assumption that we're making subconsciously, that what's best cannot be impossible. How do you know that? Since the psychologists say "theoretically" it gives further wiggle room to the fact that it's not possible and it still be okay.

I think this question is difficult because the flaw is actually present in the relationship between the minor premise and intermediate conclusion, which then ofc creates a shaky foundation for the major premise to major conclusion. In the relationship between the minor premise and subconclusion, we see the author mistakenly equivocate theoretically best with only.

Also, the conditional i wrote up to help were

understanding -> deep empathy , best way according to psychologists

but our author says

/understanding -> /deep empathy, therefore psychologists are wrong

,but who knows, maybe they psychologists arn't wrong because something could theoretically be best and not possible

@julielamberth43 said:

I always tell students to check the schools they are applying to. It doesn't matter if that date is fine for 99% of the schools if it's too late for the one you want to go to. That being said, it should be OK for the vast majority.

Maybe this is a silly question, but when we check with schools, what exactly should we say? Something along the lines of

"do you still accept applications with a January LSAT score?"

or something asking for more nuance, like

"Will applying with a January LSAT score put me at a greater disadvantage in this cycle? How could this influence scholarship?"

Is that too blunt? I'm unsure

I am in the same boat as OP, and though I’m struggling to remain optimistic about it (because I fear that a January app will hurt my chances) the fact of the matter is that it’s very a) school dependent b) absolutely the best option vs sending in a subpar November LSAT score because you wanted the early app advantage. It’s important to remember that the early app advantage can help, but a much better LSAT score will help significantly more. It’s also important to realize that a very high LSAT (170’s, or >75th percentile) will probably fair better in a January app than a score closer to the median of the school. Stay positive, I know I’m trying to! Let’s just do our best :)

This one juked me out since up until now I've been looking for options that suggest the possibility of an alternative conclusion, since a correct weakening AC thins out the relationship within the argument. This question almost felt like a strengthening question, since we were solidifying why the conclusion was indeed legit. Ugh tricky

So is the first sentence like an intermediate/sub conclusion? I'm confused as to the role it plays in the overall stimulus #help