I focused too much on the 'not imply restrictions by law' part of the stimulus and dismissed (E), thinking this sounds like an external restriction. Thought the principle of Etiquette as given necessitated the participants to restrict themselves.

I don't know if this is because I'm ESL, but I thought the word 'display' used in a religious context don't always mean aesthetic stuff like designs and all. Take example of a religious dance that's being referred to as a religious display - this doesn't tie into anything aesthetic, and so I assumed (C) was referring to something similar, like a sacrifice, a fight, or whatever other religious thing people do to prove their faith that doesn't necessarily have to do with aesthetics.

facilities, not fatalities. Judging by the comments here I'm guessing lsac did this on purpose evil mfers

I got this wrong, but I think the issue here was that I was trying to fix the argument unconsciously to make sense of it. I took the idea that because crimes are rare newspapers overreport them to mean that because crimes are rare traditionally, but that was never said.

Not sure how relevant this question is, being as ancient as it is.. but I was so confused by this question during timed. I focused on the wrong part, them saying key to quitting is on you just changing to a healthy activity, without making the connection that aerobic exercise counts as a healthy activity. I thought hey if the act of changing is the main thing, then if we can establish aerobic exercise being unique then maybe they can't generalize it to being about CHANGES?

It could have worked if the ACs introduced some aspect of aerobic exercise that helped with quitting outside of being healthy, but the argument was about changing to a healthy activity and so as long as we prove AE is healthy, all's good.

PT94 also had something that felt very similar. SA question with no formal logic solutions, and actually makes you think about the relationship between the variables in a literal way. Not something I would try to do during timed though, so I'll be skipping these and coming back if I see one of these in June.

Conjunctive premises are (usually) two premises, independent, 'jointly sufficient' premises that 'directly' support the conclusion.

Sub conclusions and minor premises are dependent on each other, where the minor premise 'indirectly' supports the main conclusion through the sub conclusion. The sub conclusion 'directly' supports the main conclusion in this case.

Two concepts that Lsat likes to test in 3 star AP questions. If they're feeling particularly sadistic they might occasionally throw in some vague incorrect descriptors like claiming the conclusion is an explanation, when it's more of a claim or an argument.

Something I've been trying to watch out for is when they bring out another AC that sounds like the right one by having the correct descriptors (hypo, concession, example, analogy) but tries to get you to confuse what the ROLE of the sentence is. Usually the trap AC is hard to pin down whereas the right AC is more safer. In these cases I find that it's not even worth trying to pin down the vague trap answer designed as a time sink when there's another better answer. Tests are not the time for reviews!

I still chose (E) anyways, but I was unsure because they never established whether (E) applies to high per capita countries as well. If, like (A), (E) applied to both the high and low countries this would provide no distinction and therefore fail to explain. Given as it is, though and using some common sense I feel like the writers expected us to infer that high per capita income countries don't suffer from the same issue of having no employment options. In any case, they at least have a lot of 'business opportunities'. Lesson learned, RRE answers don't have to explicitly show distinction in all cases. Just explaining one side of the issue is fine

I can't tolerate even the simplest Art passages with their talk of abstract values that all just sounds the same, but I will always fly through the tough Science passages for some reason. Fingers crossed they through in some lv1 Art passage mixed with a lv5 science passage on test day.

I had to re-read the first paragraph like three times because my dumb brain couldn't make the distinction between Latin America and Spain until they specifically mentioned Mexico later. The questions though were much easier, thankfully

Being an IR major finally paid off

This is probably just me but I read the italics at the top before starting this passage, and I was so confused as to why Passage A is supposed to be a book review. Kept thinking I was missing something

pt81 is sadistic lol RC had thinking about thought as a passage topic, LR has keeping secrets a secret..

from Imgflip Meme Generator

lmao if the watermark disqualifies this one that's totally fine I just wanted to vent

how the f am I supposed to know that bacteria can leave biomarkers

This question took too long to do because of all the directional details. Esp the conclusion where they said therefore Amazon flowed INTO the Pacific had me thinking if they were flowing INTO the Pacific, how did Pacific fish get into the Amazon? Did they swim against the current or something?

I chose (E) for Q11. I think the reason I was attracted to (E), and probably why some other people might also have been attracted to (E) was that they misunderstood what (E) was saying.

I took (E) to mean that 'they should be employed only if they (can) replace other methods that have undesirable ecological effects'. True, like JY says the passage for the most part wasn't concerned about whether fish farming actually replaces ocean fishing or not, but taking (E) to be talking about fish farming's 'capacity' to replace ocean fishing does make (E) more attractive because the whole passage hinted that fish farming has negative ecological effects and therefore probably cannot replace ocean fishing. Taking (E) more literally, as in asking whether fish farming has replaced traditional methods, suggests this wasn't really mentioned in the passage, and only has the last bit of the final paragraph to draw some support from.

The reason why (A) is much worse than (E) is because this is a NA question. If this was a strengthen Q, then (A) could work. With NA Qs, the negated version absolutely HAS to wreck the argument. If we negated (A), we would get something like yeah, we found some hairless dogs in South Korea. Does this mean the dogs originated in SK, and then were transported to Mexico and Peru? Maybe. Or maybe, they originated from Mexico, transported to Peru, and then later people brought them to SK as pets. You don't want this 'spectrum' of possibilities for a proper NA answer. A proper NA answer, like (E) does, absolutely has to wreck the argument's reasoning without leaving any loopholes.

I got this wrong during timed. Just picked A and ran for the other Qs.. Lesson learned, even during the earlier Qs you need to do a shallow dip for the other Qs.

Misread (E) to be saying corps offer managers early retirement as a means of reducing staff. I thought hey this supports why managers don't like cutting staff, since corps like to cut managers first.

I did choose (D) on my first go for Q22, but I still don't see how (A) is worse. If we're basing our support for (D) on the third paragraph, where the author does lump the two critics together, then we can also use the same paragraph to support (A) since in line 45, the author expands on his idea of the Whig fallacy, saying that Victorians' private philanthropy had to be due to a commitment towards a 'vested interest'.

This was one of those questions where the answer came out quick with intuition but nearly impossible to map out. We have:

1. [Refuse] correlated with [GD]

2. [Stress] cause [Bad IS]

Therefore [Bad IS] causes [GD].

Basically the whole stimulus is impossible to map out bc there is no conditional statements given, and your only hope is noticing how [Refuse] and [Stress] are the only keywords that don’t connect. Answer has to be (B).

I think the author is trying to say hey since [Refuse] results in [Stress], which results in [Bad IS], and [Refuse] seems to correlate with [GD], the reason [Refuse], a psychological phenomenon is correlated with [GD] must be due to [Bad IS] causing [GD]. Therefore the [GD] is caused by [Bad IS], which is caused by [Stress], caused by [Refuse].

wtf

wtf I read (C) to be saying willingness to take 'trips'????

I was expecting the right answer to talk about local vs general pollution levels. The 4% and 30% are local levels, but the conclusion talks about reducing air pollution in general. If one of the ACs mentioned how the company plants account for 50% of general pollution levels, and that the 'local' area is a very small subset/region then I think that could have been the right answer as well