WOW! How do we know that the introduction of the said policy is responsible for the decrease of sales of other companies? We do NOT know that.
I chose E but can't help but ask how 'a study' is enough to strengthen the argument. For example, there might be only 4 people in that study. How can we depend on a study without actually knowing the sample size? Or, does it not matter to think about how reliable a study is to strengthen this kind of argument? I got it right on this one but can't get over the thought of how reliable the study described in answer choice E is.#feedback #help
This is not the first time I see this kind of question with a tricky answer choice. Even if monkeys are given soybeans, they might still feed outside of their mountain habitat. Based on the information given, how can we say with absolute certainty that they won't eat outside of their habitat. Yes, the correct choice is way better than the rest incorrect answer choices, but, I don't feel like the correct answer--that moneys do not feed outside of their habitat when food is readily available within it--is not strongly supported by the information given. We just don't know if they will still eat outside of their habitat under such condition. My question is: Is this normally the case that we're allowed to assume things--like, Oh, now that the monkeys got the soybeans, so they don't feed outside anymore--when it comes to strongly supported questions? In this case, the correct answer choice is, at best, weakly supported, not most strongly supported. Then, we need to argue what does this term--most strongly supported--mean exactly? In my opinion, when they say 'most strongly supported', they don't mean an answer that is strongly supported based on the information given, rather they mean out of the four answer choices, which one is the most strongly supported. This is how I see it, and I may be very wrong. Because if they meant most strongly supported based on the information given, Answer A cannot be correct in this case because it is simply NOT supported. Could anyone explain more about all theses confusions? Thank you so much! #help
The way LSAT writers think is not logical. They mention "normal fee and an agreed-upon additional percentage" in the passage and expect us to assume that an agreed-upon additional percentage could be as much as double of the normal fee, which is what B is literally saying. WOW! They punish you when you make assumptions. And...they still punish you when you fail to make assumptions.
Thanks so much for all the helpful comments. I appreciate your time for sharing your insights and thoughts on this.
#feedback Where does it say that it can't be even? J.Y.'s line of reasoning assumes that there must be only one winner in this debate, but the stimulus didn't say anything about it. I'm very confused. If being reasonable is a better criterion than being good at the ability to bring the facts, then why did Britta win in the first place? In other words, Robert was more reasonable, yet he lost. So, reasonable alone wasn't considered good enough to win the debate. If it were, then Robert would have won it, right? No matter how I try to think of it, there is no way I can conclude that the coach is saying that Robert's performance was better. And, saying 'as good as' doesn't translate into 'being better.' Maybe we can equate these two things in other settings, but not in this case. Please share your thoughts because I really need help in understanding this question clearly. Looking at the comments, many people ended up choosing C like I did. Either this question wasn't clearly written by the LSAT writers or a better logical and more reasonable explanation is really missing here. 99% of J.Y.'s explanations are perfect, and for me this is the first time I completely disagree with his way of reasoning.
Hi All—Should I study and review the experimental sections in addition to the scored sections? Or is it unnecessary and too time-consuming? While taking a pretest with an experimental section might help boost stamina, I'm not sure how wise it is to study and review them. Most of you would likely say I should study and review them. But why exactly? Could you please share insights on the importance of reviewing experimental sections? Thank you.
Hi All--thanks for the advice. Do we know how many scratch paper are allowed exactly?
This is a tough question for me. As the stimulus said 'similar illnesses', I thought C is wrong because it says 'different illnesses'. Both hospitals are treating patients with the same conditions (similar illnesses) according to the argument, but the recovery rate at one hospital (Edgewater) is quicker (4 days) than the other one (University, 6 days). The stimulus itself has told us that they're the same illnesses. Thus, it didn't make sense to me to believe that the argument failed to take into account the possibility of different illnesses. Because it said 'different illnesses' is NOT the case here, so there must be something else. That's how my thought process went and I ended choosing D. I still don't have a clear understanding of why C is right even after seeing J.Y.'s explanations. The argument has clearly started that both hospitals were dealing with similar illnesses, then bringing in the possibility of different illnesses is NOT relevant here, isn't it? #help
LSAC should remove this question. The way it's written make you think that there can't be any oxygen.