Can an #admin #help explain, or at least posit an explanation to, what's going on with the curve on Q17?

25% and 50% chance at 120 and 75% chance at 171 is likely to be the strangest curve stats I've seen for a question.

The "failed to account"–and your reasoning of what it means–is precisely the reason I chose B over E.

Can anyone speak to this and #help us out?

Hi there,

Those re-taking the October 2021 administration, whether on 10/14, 10/17, or 10/21, will also be receiving their scores on 10/27, at 9:00am ET.

Thank you for the thoughtful and intelligent comment.

While I understand your reasoning, the issue I take with AC D is that it doesn't tell us something like, "...environmental pollution, which has been shown to increase rates of cancer." Sure, that maybe would've made it a little on the nose but, without it, you can find anything that, as you put it, introduces "the possibility that it’s more strongly correlated with cancer risk." – which forces us to make assumptions.

e.g., "The countries with average high fat intake are also the countries with the highest levels of puppy owners."

Could we assume that this introduces an alternative cause that casts doubt on the argument? I'm being facetious and a little absurd, of course, since we know that in the real world pollution has negative effects to human health and puppies have positive effects to... well, everything, but we've been taught to not take our knowledge of the real world into the test. And I feel like AC D asks us to do exactly that.

I usually have the attitude of "fair play, LSAC, fair play," when I get a question wrong, but this one... this one made me angry. I'll get over it in a few minutes but for now it feels good to vent.

We only know that the writer would agree that perfect translations are always impossible only when it comes to poetry. It could be that the writer also thinks that perfect translations are possible when it comes to novels, manuals, comic books, or anything else that isn't poetry.

'Only' introduces the necessary condition, meaning that 'poetry' needs to be placed to the right of the arrow.

It might help to think about what you wrote really means. If it were true that P –> TW, it could be that other things that aren't poetry could also be TW, when we're trying to 'limit' the things that are TW to only P.

If you place TW as the necessary condition, it leaves open the possibility that there are other things that would be sufficient to trigger TW.

I understand your frustration, but AC A is, in fact, the contrapositive of the first line in the stimulus.

If TW is "can be translated well" and P is "poetry", the stimulus provides us with:

TW → P

The contrapositive then being:

P → TW (if something is not poetry, it can be translated well).

It seems as if your hang up might be about the fact that, given our knowledge of the real world, these statements – particularly the contrapositive – do not seem to hold true. But it's important to remember that the LSAT doesn't care too much about whether or not you think the information provided in the stimulus holds true in our world.

Always take the premises in the stimulus as fact, and question the support that it provides (or, in most cases, fails to provide) the conclusion that is given.

I'm just upset that instead of including "a type," as you did in “Out of all the plants there are, an unusual nucleomorph has been discovered within a TYPE of plant known as a C-Plant,” LSAC did not, and instead left it infuriatingly ambiguous.

I actually thought, while choosing AC B,"if E is the correct AC because LSAC means 'within a plant' to mean that this applies to ALL plants of this species I will be LIVID". And here I am, livid.

AC C is a little tricky because it knows that you most recently read about 'illustrating graphically' when it comes to algebraic concepts, and it preys on that. The writers test your ability to remember the first part of the stimulus, which speaks about geometric concepts, and to equate "illustrating [ ] concepts graphically" (used later in the stimulus) with "the graphical illustrations" (used earlier in the stimulus, in reference to geometric concepts).

The stimulus actually says that during the periods when average temperatures and humidity increased, crop yields increased, as well. AC C refers to the recent climate, which the stimulus refers to as having been generally cool. AC C lets us know that further to it being cool, the recent climate has also been dry, and thus the opposite of the periods with higher average temperatures and humidity. During this recent period, crop pests have not been able to establish precisely because of the cool and dry climate, and therefore the warmer and more humid climate that scientists predict will come in the next century may allow these pests to become established, thus lowering crop yields.

i don't care much for stingrays

Hi there! As JY said, "you don't want to think of this as a side effect – it's a causal effect." I think your initial interpretation of what constitutes a "side effect" is a bit more liberal than how the stimulus sees it. Granted, we have to assume that the way "side effect" is used in the stimulus is the same as the commonly understood and commonly used definition of "side effect," but I think it's a relatively safe assumption to make.

did JY really reference the USSR's Five-Year Plans at 0:47? truly dope

Further to my point above, it could also be argued that if the treatment for one is more urgent than another, then they are not the same. I imagine the same treatment being the same in all respects: method of application, dosage, urgency/timing, etc.

Certainly. But I think it's worth remembering that we're not looking for an AC that covers ALL the Necessary Assumptions. Any given argument could have many NAs; we're just looking for an AC that points out one of them.

To tie it back to this question: we're not saying that if the treatments were the same, then CE wouldn't be especially dangerous. We're saying that to be able to claim that CE is especially dangerous, it must be the case that the treatments aren't the same.

I hope that helps.

i mean, at least the UN works better than the League of Nations

the system that cried collision

To provide a different view in regards to the PSs, I’d be wary of skipping the later ones just because you did well on the earlier ones. I’ve found that the PSs are generally structured in increasing difficulty, so skipping later ones can prevent you for engaging with more challenging material that might just help you improve that much more.

JY: "what's the first thing we always do for parallel?"

cry

I was having the same doubt you describe, and your reasoning – that the author could not have reached the conclusion without assuming that Strong Foundation → Formal Instruction – matches with how I reasoned it, as well.

gonna start crushing up and railing my centrium

"oh crap... now i'm weak"

"All" does imply "Most" but "Most" does not imply "All"

After thinking about it a little more, the only way I find to reconcile this is mismatch is to accept that anything that comes after "...should pay for that risk" is no longer the principle that the qstem refers to – it's just, as JY puts it, sugar-coating. It's fluff that's meant to distract us, and... well, I fell for it.