A: It does not contradict the conclusion.

B: Does not discuss anyone's character, just the accuracy of their claims. You could argue someone lying is an attack on their character but that does not apply here.

C: This feels like a necessary sufficient question and this answer choice addresses that. The theorem being provable does not mean that Fermat did not lie. It can be true and he can still be a liar, he just was not mistaken.

D: The term provable does not require being defined here. It is not vague or ambiguous in the stimulus.

E: Nothing here is clearly false. What claim shared falls under this?

A: This flaw is an example of circular reasoning. Meaning that the evidence for the conclusion is simply a premise stated earlier in the stimulus. This may be a flaw but is not applicable in this scenario.

B: This flaw is an example of appeal to unqualified authority. This is a general flaw but not applicable to this scenario. The stimulus does not rely on expert testimony.

C: Nothing "can" happen. The author is stating these things are happening, and is assuming the result of them.

D: This connection is clear. Just because traditional school was built on something that is no longer happening, does not mean it will fall apart. This thing was necessary for the development, not the continuation. This applies.

E: This does not discuss the value of an institution but the ability for the institution to continue. Something can lack value but still exist.

My initial thoughts: Ruth doesn't say half the stuff Stephanie claims.

"To be worthy of public trust" but Ruth said "To become a politician", this is fine, these should connect (even if they don't always).

Stephanie states "it is not enough" but Ruth does not insinuate that this is the only thing needed to become a politician. Just that it should be something someone needs to become a politician. A person needs a lot of things. Stephanie is putting a lot of weight on Ruth's statements.

A: This may have been my second choice, meaning it's probably the trap

Her point of view is not opposite of Ruth's however.

She isn't disagreeing with Ruth's actual point but the one she's pushing. She may believe that diverse experience is important, she's not saying it isn't, she's saying it is not enough.

B: I don't think this matters.

But, this has the same problem as A. She isn't saying it doesn't matter, she's saying it's not enough.

C: This aligns the most with my initial thought.

A lot of what she says does not align with Ruth's argument. She is arguing a much weaker claim than Ruth made. This feels the strongest.

D: Why is this needed? This is not relevant.

E: None of this mentioned, and none of it is necessary.

A. This is the clearest answer.

"Since we need many beliefs in order to survive, the statisticians claim must be mistaken".

If we did need beliefs to survive, that doesn't mean the claim is wrong. It doesn't negate the statisticians claim, UNLESS you assume that the claim made can't be right if survival is on the line. But the stimulus never says that.

B. "Never change the set". Accepting new beliefs is a change and goes against the stimulus.

C. That's fine. This can be true. But that doesn't weaken the argument. There would still be some belief sets that would hinder an individuals ability to survive.

D. This means nothing. It used buzz words and is completely irrelevant.

If we needed a reason beyond that to get rid of this choice, it completely ignores the rules in the stimulus.

You reject a belief when given adequate evidence against it. This says that we should accept them even if this evidence exists against them. SO no

E. They don't need to be correct beliefs, but if evidence is shown that they are not, you cannot hold onto them anymore. The "correct" does not matter to the author so much as the belief.

A: Look for key language in the test. Depends turning into an if later on. We are working with necessary sufficient claims. In this case, one thing was required and therefore another is sufficient.

The other answers are mind-numbing. However, they aren't as conclusive. Even if it's still confusing, this answer choice reads best out of the others on format.

B: Belief vs. Fact. It misses all the necessary and sufficiency that is the basis of this argument. Even if it were built upon beliefs, that's not the problem with this passage and isn't a weakening point. But, belief is never claimed to be true or fact.

C: No it doesn't.

D: Demonstrates concepts and connections but does not claim that they are the same.

E: Circular reasoning. It's not. The author has their reasoning and proof so the argument does not solely rely on the definition given in the beginning.

My thought process: /HP -> /ATW | ATW -> HP | Flaw? How can high-tech equipment aid in high productivity? If training requires this tech, HP cannot be achieved without adequate training, and if adequate training cannot be done without high-tech, HP requires tech.

A: When did it do this?

B: This is exactly where my mind initially went. We know what high productivity needs. Now what if adequate training needs the equipment. It becomes a chain and high productivity becomes dependent on it as well.

C: This does not matter. It is not talking about what is desirable or not. It's discussing what produces high productivity, the stimulus does not care if you want it.

D: This might be an argument for another question, but it does not matter here. We do not care about educating workers, we care about that last sentence.

E: I ultimately chose B, but this one was tricky and a trap. "Cannot contribute" does not matter. The argument is not if this equipment can contribute to high productivity, it is whether or not high productivity is dependent on this equipment.

This answer choice does not create a dependency.

I still need to practice breaking down conditionals, but I generally do fine just by breaking them down logically. So, in this case, E was clear.

A: This is clearly stated in the stimulus and doesn't directly cause any issues to the conclusion. Reporters can still scoop. Not so much a flaw as a statement.

B: "Need not" does not negate "can", they do not need to but they can. Does not follow a logical chain; nonetheless one that prevents scooping.

C: This is not relevant. It does not prevent other reporters from "scooping" but simply states they are sharing.

D: This still shows that there is a discrepancy amongst knowledge between reporters. Meaning that there is room for "scooping"

E: You can't scoop from other reporters if you all know the same information. This creates a flaw in the argument.

also "scoop" is driving me insane.

I'm in the same boat. I've spoken to a few admissions counselors directly and while pre-Halloween is great, if you think that extra month will have a significant impact on you LSAT score. Do it. You definitely want the best overall application. Especially if you're applying to more competitive schools.

@aikol.iva You can apply if you have another LSAT already documented and then submit updated numbers if you are still waiting to hear from schools at that point. (I think) (No one yell if I'm wrong)

I'm still working on my improving, however, I noticed my biggest change came when I started spending significantly more time on the passage. I was always going back and forth for a lot of questions, but once I invested the extra 2 to 3 minutes on reading the passage instead and maybe writing those little summaries, everything flows a lot better once I get to questions and I often make up that time.

Also being more confident in any question that almost feels instinctual. I used to want to go back and check for most questions, even ones that the answer felt as natural as 2 +2 = 4. Now, I don't have to go back to the passage and find it, that wastes time, if I felt that confident, I need to go to the next question and spend that time somewhere else.

If you're not trying to get a perfect RC, a thing a friend of mine does (similar score goal to you), they spend extra time on the passage style that they are comfortable with. So, if it's law and science? They are investing in trying to get perfect scores on those passages, not every single one. Often times they have little to no time for that last section, but they are way more confident in the sections before it.

Also, just something I've started doing that's made me more confident is reading instead of rotting in my day to day. I already read books, but generally biographies or political science pieces that interested me. Now, if I have time to be on my phone, I'm using it to invest in my future. I'll find some science articles, humanity pieces, etc. This way when I take the LSAT these passages read much more naturally to me. I've already noticed a difference in the science pieces.

Better use of my time than Instagram ! Helping things become instinctual

@Oblivion I think it's to signal that the phrases are interchangeable. If Luke is a Jedi <-> then Yoda trained him. If Yoda trained Luke <-> then Luke is a Jedi.

I came back to this at the end of the "Conditional and Set Logic" portion because I was still a little confused on the definitions. But reading it again with the information I have now, the "Let's Review" section makes way more sense. If it's a little confusing now, keep pushing, it might make more sense for you towards the end.

crockpotting

@joannaw "The only" is a sufficient indicator; "only" and "only if" are necessary indicators. Question 3 states "the only oral myths..." means that oral myths will be the sufficient indicator.

@SimonNavarrete Both work if they get you the right answer. But the comparison is saying pandas are more genetically similar to bears, than pandas are to raccoons. Not if raccoons are closer to bears or if pandas are closer to bears.

With the information in this question, there is no reason to assume that a raccoon is not more genetically similar to a bear than a panda is to a bear. All we know is that a panda is more genetically similar to a bear than a panda is to a raccoon.

@Sameer_Ahamad

I am guessing you mean what is the subject and predicate for the object clause since it is a clause.

My best bet is:

Subject: "It" a referential for "Library"

This would be a one subject two predicates situation...

Predicate [1]-

Verb: unable

Object: the rest w/ modifier

Predicate [2]-

Verb: displays

Object: the rest w/ modifiers

@Sameer_Ahamad Yes because it is only lacking support and the added statement would offer the missing support.

@chloeg6676 I am not a tutor, however, I would say no. Context is essentially the introduction to the argument. Unless there was context to a sub conclusion and then context for the next conclusion, I think it would only be in the beginning.

@LindseyGasaway The first sentence states that "Train service suffers when a railroad combines." It does not specify in what way it suffers, but it does suffer. The following describes the combination that is causing the train service to suffer and explains that it suffers because "a railroad serves neither particularly well" (because its attention is divided). The final statement "Therefore, if railroad is going to be a successful business, then it must concentrate exclusively on one of these two markets" is supported by the first two sentences. The train services business is suffering because it is inattentive to customers when it is combined with freight and commuters. The conclusion offers the solution, that it must concentrate exclusive on one of those markets to have a successful business. But also what do I know, we are all here reviewing and this probably sounds wordy. Hopefully, this offered mild clarity.

@AngelaOcana Sadly, I don't think there is a definitive answer to that. I believe that it is situational. Any fact you know to be true that is not stated is just that "reasonable assumption" they're talking about. I believe that the time not to assume, is when the text directly goes against what you would normally assume to be true. We know that 2+2=4, and it is safe to assume that when necessary. But, if a question explicitly states 2+2=5, that assumption is no longer right. You cannot make that assumption, your real-world knowledge does not outweigh the text in the passage.

@NicholasRestrepo word

@Katiesue14 same exact boat as you, good luckk