I felt like B and E were equally valid, but ultimately I didn't like the caveat in E that he thought another camera would work better. So there was still something that didn't completely satisfy him about the camera. This suggests James did not get all the use that he intended to get.

B tells you that the case you're worrying about is not reality, because it takes most players several weeks to finish.

I struggled with reviewing this question for literally 50 minutes, and now I finally think I got it.

The stimulus can be diagrammed as:

tried domesticating wild animals → [requires] seemed worth domesticating

contrapositive:

seemed worth domesticating → tried domesticating wild animals

in other words, if a wild species didn't seem worth domesticating, then old people didn't try.

The conclusion states that most wild large mammal species today are one of two things:

a) [old people tried domesticating, and] they are too hard;

b) didn't seem worth domesticating[, which means they didn't try domesticating.]

This conclusion leaves open the possibility that old people DID NOT TRY to domesticate some species. Which ones? They didn't try the ones that "didn't seem worth domesticating."

So, A is not necessary to assume. If you negate A, the negation becomes exactly what the conclusion implied is possible. (that old people didn't try to domesticate some wild species.) Negating A doesn't weaken or destroy the conclusion.

B, on the other hand, is necessary to assume. B is hard to understand by itself. It only becomes clear that it's NA when you negate.

If it IS much easier today to domesticate some wild animals than in the past, then the framework of the old times is not exhaustive or accurate enough for today. If it IS much easier today, then that implies there's a strong chance that some wild species today were hard in the past but easier today to domesticate, which implies there might be a third category of species that's not captured in the conclusion - the third category being, "hard in the past but not anymore." The current conclusion just says in a blanket statement that all the hard species in the past are still hard now.

For that conclusion to be true, B needs to be true.

For A: "very long time" can still be 2nd longest, 3rd longest, etc. There can be other countries who used it longer than Paraguay.

E is better because it directly connects with the line in the stimulus saying Paraguay uses mate MOST widely.

that username though

It says just "the program" for the rest of the stimulus. So it's referring to only one program

I completely agree. I wrote my own comment expressing a similar gripe I have, and I think this is a bad question.

nah all of these ACs are bad. "Whenever possible" says NOTHING about the ACTUAL frequency at which Woodville houses only one patient. D is just talking about what Woodville COULD do if their ideal scenario happens (ideal: it's possible to house just 1 patient -> they do it and house just 1 patient in a semiprivate room)

It's totally possible that it's almost never possible to house just 1 person per room. That the opportunity never arises. Then this AC would not explain at all the surprising fact about Woodville having similar infection rates and stay lengths.

This question is just bad.

I would do

newspaper -> NOT adequately cover all sides of every one of its stories

But the important distinction in this stimulus is "important stories" vs. "all stories." So I wouldn't get too caught up in this statement

I'm upset because your explanation is basically the only way that this AC is in any way justified, but it requires so many assumptions/imagination. lol

I've gotten this question wrong twice over 2 years and I feel really stupid. I think I picked A both times. I think I was overthinking it. My prephrase for the answer was "bonobos somehow know there's something special about these leaves, so they knowingly eat it. So A talking about how they behave in a unique way towards these leaves made me think that's right...

I get that E confirms that there is a high chance that bonobos would be sick. But we're trying to explain why bonobos eat it. Wouldn't A be stronger because that suggests bonobos are deliberately eating this in a different way/frequency than other plants because they know the leaves have a special power?

Can anyone help?

POE is so necessary for this question. B is not very satisfying but the other ACs are clearly wrong.

I was so convinced that "then current" was a typo and spent a solid 2 minutes trying to figure out wtf this stimulus meant. lol screw the LSAT writers. It means "the aesthetic theory that was current back then"

My eyes went so wide when I saw that B was wrong and also that 60% of people chose B

I was deciding in between C and D. I think the argument makes an assumption that leisure travelers value comfort. if they don't value comfort, airlines wouldn't have a reason to prioritize their comfort. So I thought C specified one way in which leisure travelers don't care about comfort. Why was this wrong?

#help

I will get a 173 or higher on the September LSAT!

C requires a huge assumption. How do we know that landlords will actually act on their incentive to provide energy efficient appliances? Sure, we might expect them to do that – but that doesn't mean they actually do that! This is a huge logical flaw that commonly shows up on the LSAT.

I see some explanations say that the stimulus is currently assuming that the tenants are not currently conserving BECAUSE they don't have the financial incentive to conserve. The stimulus's invalid assumption = assuming that tenants are behaving consistently with incentives.

How can C be the correct answer, when C requires us to make that same invalid assumption?

#help

I read like 4 explanations of this Q and thought I was going insane, but this is the only one that made sense. Thank you.

For C, I thought the author was referring to himself. "the source of a cited claim maybe be biased and hence unreliable" --> he is citing his 3 cars to say they are not fuel efficient. This source (his own personal experience) is biased and unreliable. Someone being like "well in My eXpeRienCe with 3 cArs" clearly seems wrong because your experience is not the universal or a representative experience.

Why can't we have interpreted it that way?

I know that the LSAT likes using confusing and complicated referential phrasing, so I thought the phrase here referred to himself.

#help

I eliminated E because I thought the question stem was asking "which AC MUST be true?" But the stem simply said consistent with the facts in the stimulus.

I eliminated E because I thought "Well the PA could have told someone 70%, another 50%, another 30%... it could be unequal" so it didn't HAVE to be all 50%, 50%, 50%, etc.

But everyone knowing 50% is CONSISTENT with the stimulus -- it is a possibility.

Very hard nuance.

#help

Still pretty unconvinced by C.

Conclusion: I believe there is good reason to think that the defendant is not completely innocent in this case

Premise: If the defendant were completely innocent, the prosecutor would not have brought charges.

Contrapositive: The prosecutor brought charges, so it means the defendant is NOT completely innocent.

The contrapositive (the necessary part) is the conclusion. The author has an assumption -- a presupposition -- that the prosecutor will act a certain way depending on innocence/guilt. Isn't this circular reasoning?

I get that the author is still relying on the prosecutor's opinion, but it seems like B is also correct.

following

yeah I was in between D and E, and knew D was not quite right, but I didn't think there had to be a "significant" amount of buildings. If there was one building with 40 apartments then it could single-handedly contribute to the total number of apartments.

I guess significant just means "a number that makes an important impact on the total number of apartments." I thought it had to mean "a lot." so I thought "well since just 1 building can make a difference, that's not significant." But here it just means "makes an important impact."

you're absolutely right. But to the LSAT writers: WTFFFFF

Yeah this is a bad question even though I got it right. POE only left B, but that answer choice is not really good either.

"Quite the contrary." and saying (implying) that Vierne's music IS religious could mean that he is indeed using a different standard / definition in order to designate something as "religious music." That's why the music critic said that for him, divinely inspired --> religious music.

The music critic didn't necessarily "confuse" two different meanings. The critic says, or could mean, "I disagree with those "some" people and I think Vierne's symphonies ARE religious because I have a different criterion for it."