This is a very old comment but I wanted to reply to it and note a correction in case someone scrolling through the comments looks here -

I also did the same method as you and ended up choosing AC B because the language is "More than 50 percent of the students WHO TAKE night classes at Harrison are from Pulham." = 50+% of the 38 night class-ers.

According to your above work that 38 kids take night classes, and the split is 24 in P, 14 in W - it would follow that yes, more than 50% who take night classes do live in P because half of 38 is 19 and 24 is greater than that. I think you interpreted (B) to be saying 50% of students living IN P and that misunderstanding actually worked in your favour.

This method is therefore incorrect to use because we are inputting our own integers and coming up with theoretical answers, but we aren't always lucky to use integers that will lead us to the right AC. LSAC know that ratios of 10 are always easiest to work with and challenged us by making such an input lead us to the incorrect answer. In this case, it gave us a "could be true" answer but we don't know for certain because we don't actually know how many students are in each group.

My conclusion is a warning about inputting our own numbers - its a gamble if they work or not so do not rely on it as your method in Math questions. Translate into logic using words because we don't have enough time to try out multiple sets of numbers.

And if truly lost/guessing - choose a less comprehensive answer for MBT because its easier to prove, making it more likely. (50+% contains the 38% so choose the smaller/less one)

*a hasty generalisation is the logical fallacy of making a claim based on a sample size far too small to support the claim

#feedback #help I also do not understand this part of Q5. I thought (e) was a trap getting us to conflate the lobbyists for the Charter with "staunchest supporters" of the Declaration, how do we know they supported it if their proposal was never adopted? We are just told the Declaration drafting process began in 1946 and then was debated in the GA, is there a textual reference mentioning the lobby group also working with the HR Commission that I am missing?

I also had a lot of trouble with #20, mainly the plural of "ideas". I felt like (c) saying that traditional historians of science don't put ANY innovative ideas into practice and that's way too broad and asks us to assume things we don't know about. Yes, they have failed to put H's idea into practice but no innovative ideas ever? that's a pretty strong statement to make and I still don't see how it applies. (c) makes sense as correct only through process of elimination,

#admin if a question is 5/5 difficulty can the explanation please be seriously expanded upon #feedback

I interpreted it the same way that the principle only applies when the trigger (disagreement) occurs and since Medina agrees, then the principle does not apply - which is correct. We cannot make any inferences about what is acceptable. This helps eliminate (A) and (E) because we know nothing about what is acceptable.

The super subtle textual support here is that the principle is only applicable if there are multiple issues - which there is not based on the last sentence "there is only one such issue". So the principle's exception "it is otherwise unacceptable" is triggered for L and N. By disagreeing with the 1 issue in question, there are no others to fill in the gap (which are required for the principle to apply) so it is unacceptable.

So that leads us to (B) telling us that it is unacceptable to vote for L or N - which brings in that first inference we made that the principle is not triggered and therefore tells us nothing about what is acceptable only that which is not.

I think the book is part of the movie as the wife is described as an "aspiring novelist" so writing about her husband is an element within the movie. I've never seen Manhattan but I imagined the excerpts from the book being narrated eat pray love style (the actress says the lines while acting out writing them)

that's the exact reason I was distrustful of that choice RIP, I thought the LSAC was trying to trick me to fall for it. I chose (a) offensive thinking it means that WA is presenting artists in an offensive light, highlighting their bad qualities.

Is that a good general rule/approach to these question types? Look later on to see if one of the AC words appears? Or is that too limited

#help

The "someone" doing the action in our argument is Marion. "Without having a good reason" is referring back to Marion because we infer (with difficulty, this question sucks) that the given course of action is what doesn't have good reasoning - and because that action refers to Marion doing the action, not having reasoning does as well. I interpret it as the referential carrying over like a chain (like distributive property in maths).

I have a follow-up with the correct answer choice being B for question 1. I narrowed down my ACs to B or C, and ultimately went with C because I did not like the use of the word 'infer' in B. The construction of ancient techniques does not seem like an inference but a pretty concrete way of proving a hypothesis, and as we know the LSAC picks every word with intention so I thought they used 'infer' to trap us. Or is the re-construction an inference itself.

I understand how C is a summary of the main idea of para #3 as opposed to the whole thing but still feel it is strongly than the use of "infer" in B. I guess any advice on dealing with this for future questions or an explanation if anyone understands it better? Thank you : )

I strongly agree, LG is by far my best section and I never thought I'd actually enjoy doing them when I first started studying. More than missing LG I am really scared about only having '1 shot' at the LSAT. I wish they were removing it in December or during a less popular testing date so we could have at least had the August test for a second try.

I am also intimidated by what the LG section may look like since it's the last one, are they going to make it tougher because they know how many of us are counting on the LG section for our score?