what the heck.

The most charitable interpretation of D is "99% of university students receive a stipend that is significantly more than tuition+living expenses"

Ok. So what?

It's still true that:

-The TAs need the jobs to afford tuition

-The university's sole purpose in hiring them is to fund their education.

So, TAs should not be considered university employees.

If D had said, all of the TAs come from billionaire families, maybe that would make it a better answer choice? Because they would "otherwise be able to afford tuition".

Conclusion: The speed limit should be changed to 75 mph (implied: raised).

Premise 1: A government study says that raising the speed limit to 75 mph would reduce the accident rate.

Premise 2: The average speed on the roads in question is already 75 mph.

The gap in reasoning is between “Government claims the accident rate will decrease” and the conclusion “so we should raise the speed limit.” The argument uses accident rate reduction as a justification for the speed limit change. Our job is to give a rule that will make this make sense. . (The uniformity of the roads is similar to the DOMAIN! ? right?)

Analysis:

* Answer choice E helps justify the argument more effectively by connecting the premises to the conclusion.

* Answer choice B provides minimal support because it only refers to the conclusion without incorporating or addressing the premises, failing to justify the argument as a whole.

Upon a quick google search, it seems that deep carbon deposits are mostly in the earth's crust, but some are also present in the core and mantle. So. IDFK

This was the crux of what messed me up on this question! Are the carbon deposits in the crust? I'm still not 100% sure. Despite that, I see that D is the best weakener.

@7sage please #feedback

yeah can we get an updated explanation for Question 2 going way more in depth @7sage?

Hold on,.... question 2. Why isn't it considered a very weak argument?

I thought it could still technically be considered a conclusion and premise because it sort of makes sense to say "scientists concluded that bears and raccoons diverged 30 to 50 million years ago" BECAUSE "One method ....After comparing genetic material "

Like, the pieces don't really fit together, but a lot of weak arguments don't seem to "fit together", have huge gaps in logic, and make no real sense but are still structurally considered arguments. What is different about this?

I did the same!! these darn LSAT writers know how to manipulate us man

I chose B. I interpreted it to mean that journalists were becoming more individually specialized and reporting less on broad topics, so they dont need an increase in broad knowledge. They just need to know about their specialty.

For D, I made the assumption that citing bold claims without any pushback would inspire debate in the public, because the claims are outlandish. HOWEVER I now realize D is the stronger answer choice, even if I didn't catch my mistake with interpreting B.

I made way more assumptions than I consciously realized. I was really stretching D to make it help explain because I guess I was digging my heels in? I got attached to B?

For D to explain, I have to assume the claims being reported on are wild or outlandish, that the public is smart enough to identify these claims as wild, and then this would cause debate.

The much more reasonable interpretation is : citing claims without challenging their veracity would not inspire debate, it would be a form of corroborating that claim.

I chose B. I interpreted it to mean that journalists were becoming more individually specialized and reporting less on broad topics, so they dont need an increase in broad knowledge. They just need to know about their specialty.

Wait... "not poorly promoted" translates to "properly promoted".... ACK that actually makes this question way easier. When I answered it under time, I wasn't sure if they were interchangeable. Upon looking of the definition of "proper", I see how they are. Ugh :P

Following- in a similar predicament.

I am really struggling to get my essays done tho. So I'm giving myself until Feb (super late I know, but I would be ok with reapplying if this cycle doesnt go well)

I think if you have your materials together, might as well send schools what you have and ask them to hold your application if they allow that. If schools don't allow you to hold for future LSAT i would wait.

You never know, admissions teams might still take a peak at your file, and submitting early is always good if you feel ready to submit

I stared at Passage A for a good 10 minutes trying to comprehend it on my own, feeling completely defeated before I caved and checked this explanation video. Feels good to know JY considers it one of the most inscrutable passages of all time.

WHAT A DOOZY

I picked C during time, D during blind review. C SOUNDS good but ultimately i realized its not the INFORMATION that is the dubious analogy, but the fact that we are concluding computers are magically gonna have intelligence because they are in a way analogous to the brain that is dubious.

My instagram is @derekh656406 ;P

yassssss

you got me with that red herring on the last one. I wrote a second statement "if >10% adoption rate-> may still be eligible. The contrapositive is sort of nonsensical tho. (if may not still be eligible -> more than 10% adoption rate ????) idfk , glad its not translatable bcause it nearly gave me a $tr0k3

You already have a great score! I say yeah can't hurt to postpone til Nov.

I'm averaging around 167ish and postponed my first take til Nov because I wanna give myself the best chance of only having 170+ scores on record to counterbalance my 2.9 GPA.

I think you're in great shape, so I think it kinda doesnt matter too much for RD. Like if you wanna grind rn and get it over with, do that.