I love how many people got thrown off by totally glazing over "comparable number of items."

And of course I immediately got it right during BR when I finally noticed that phrase. Whomp whomp.

@drewood27 The author isn't saying "economists assume that price gouging is efficient because..." The author is saying "the economists' reasoning is XYZ, and within that reasoning, the economists made an assumption between the support and their conclusion."

The economists do not provide support for their claim that "willingness to pay more is proportional to need." The economists simply assumed that if one is willing to pay more for a thing, then that indicates need. The author spots the flaw in the economists' logic, and rejects their reasoning by saying "actually, no - willingness to pay is NOT proportional to need because some people can't pay as much as others."

Oh I actually liked this one. How novel.

First and foremost, this is a least strengthens question. The correct AC will either be: (1) a weakener; (2) irrelevant or leaves the argument at the same strength; or (3) a strengthener BUT doesn't strengthen as much as the other ACs.

Three facts are presented in the stim:

1) The Winter's Tale is modeled after Alcestis.

2) Shakespeare didn't know Greek.

3) Alcestis was originally written in Greek, therefore unlikely source.

Conclusion: Shakespeare read Alcestis in Latin.

I can't predict which type of least strengthen AC it will be, so we'll go through PoE.

(A): This strengthens a teeny tiny bit by implying that Shakespeare may have, at the very least, known a few phrases in Latin. It does not imply that he was fluent, however. That would require too many assumptions to be a solid strengthener.

(B): This strengthens by eliminating the possibility that Shakespeare read Alcestis in English as an alternate explanation.

Note: It's okay if you don't have prior knowledge of Shakespeare, including knowing that he wrote his plays in English. We don't actually need to know whether Shakespeare spoke English or not to get to the right answer; we only need to strengthen the claim that he spoke Latin.

If we take the AC as true, then the English version sucked. The only real assumption here is that he didn't use the shitty English translation as a source because he knew that it sucked. This does not eliminate the possibility that he had multiple reasons for not using the English version. It's totally possible that he didn't use the shitty translation because he also wasn't fluent in English.

So, his fluency in English really doesn't matter because we're already told that the English version was bad, and we've made the reasonable assumption that he wouldn't want to use a bad translation as the source material.

(C): Strengthens by telling us that if Shakespeare spoke Latin, the translation was easily obtained. This eliminates the possibility that he spoke Latin but there was only one copy of the translation hidden in some wealthy merchant's basement.

(D): Strengthens by telling us that Shakespeare likely learned Latin in school.

(E): Strengthens quite a bit by telling us that Shakespeare knew enough Latin to have read Latin translations of Greek plays before.

After going through all of the ACs, (A) strengthens the least compared to the other four ACs.

I know I'm looking for an AC where the sufficient/necessary conditions are mixed up, so I narrowed it down to (B) and (E).

(B):

If river overflows in spring, then preceded by high snowfall winter. This winter had high snowfall. Thus, the river will overflow this spring.

X -> Y

Y

thus

X

(E):

If human outbreak, then preceded by wildlife outbreak. There is a wildlife outbreak. Thus, there will be a human outbreak.

X -> Y

Y

thus

X

Hmmmmm these seem exactly the same. I am obviously missing something, but what?

OH SHIT HANG ON "EVERY" IS A SUFFICIENT INDICATOR NOT A NECESSARY ONE

(B) mapped out (correctly this time):

If high snowfall winter, then river overflows in spring. This winter had high snowfall. Thus, the river will overflow this spring.

X -> Y

X

thus

Y

Oh. There's not actually a flaw in (B). Since this is a parallel flaw question, the correct answer must be (E).

I was between (A) and (C), and initially settled on (C) because it felt stronger. Fortunately, before submitting, I realized the researcher's conclusion was that back belts do not help to prevent back injuries, not that wearing back belts cause increased back injuries.

Thus, the answer is (A).

I'm a doofus. After reading the stim/question stem, I understood that I needed to weaken the author's argument that medieval peasants were not dedicated to religion and their religiosity was exaggerated.

But when I went through the ACs, my brain shifted to weakening the historians' argument that medieval peasants were dedicated to religion. So I chose (A) even though I wasn't particularly satisfied with it.

Upon BR, I immediately noticed my error and selected (C), which states that the clergy were honest about the lack of religion among non-peasants.

I wasted like 13 whole minutes on this question, but ultimately got it correct (I blame this question for the other 4 questions I got wrong in this section lol).

I was flip-flopping between (B) and (D), and the negation test wasn't helping as much as usual.

Finally I went back to the answers I'd already hidden, just in case. Lo and behold, (A) was a perfect fit.

Note to self: If I've narrowed it down to 2 ACs but dislike both of them, go back and review hidden ACs in case I misread.

I'm in the same boat. My father is an attorney and is well-known in the field of law I specialize in. I'm applying to the law school that my father and my sister-in-law attended, and my father taught as an adjunct there for a little bit. My boss of 10+ years is an alum of the other school I'm applying to, the dean of admissions knows my father, and my mother is a professor at this university's business school. On top of that, the founding partner of my firm is on an advisory board of one of these schools.

And I'm mentioning all of these as reasons why I'm interested in the schools! I've heard people I trust and respect saying really good things about their educations at these schools, so of course I want to apply. I am not operating under the assumption that I am guaranteed admission, and I don't imply that at all in my application. But it's always nice to have a personal connection to the school instead of just "I'm applying here because, y'know, it's a law school and I want a law degree."

First, I had to remind myself that this is a most strongly supported question, not must be true. The correct AC will be the one that makes the least amount of assumptions; we're not necessarily looking for an AC that makes zero assumptions.

Anyway, I kept reading the first sentence of paragraph 2 as "By his early twenties, Noguchi showed such exquisite comprehension of human anatomy and deft conceptual realization..." so I wasn't a fan of any of the ACs at first because we had no concrete support that Noguchi even sculpted before arriving in Paris.

Upon my second pass at this question, I realized that the sentence actually said "Noguchi's sculptures showed", meaning we do have concrete support that he created sculptures prior to 1927.

I cringe even saying this because it's so hokey: I made it about the journey, not the destination.

My initial mindset, like most folks, was, "This is a very tedious and difficult task that I need to accomplish before I'm able to reach my goal, and I wish I could just get it over with and move on."

After a few months of slogging through the core curriculum, it struck me that studying for the LSAT felt very similar to learning how to do the big Sunday NYT crossword puzzles. A couple years ago, I was terrible at crosswords, no matter the difficulty. But I kept doing them. I figured out the rules, the logic, how the editors think, patterns that kept popping up, giveaways in clues that make the answers obvious, how to get the right answer even when I don't know the subject matter, ways to avoid trap answers. Y'know, how the game works. Emphasis on game.

So I started treating the LSAT as a puzzle game, instead of just an annoying obstacle. And the more I tried thinking this way, the more I actually felt it. If I actively enjoy solving puzzles in other contexts, like crosswords and video games, why not in the context of the LSAT too?

Now I genuinely find LSAT prep fun. Drills and PTs are just games, and games are fun. I like feeling my brain start to work in different ways, and noticing that I'm instinctively applying what I've learned about logic to everyday things in my life. So prepping for the LSAT isn't something I have to do anymore. Now it's something I want to do (it's also my favorite way to procrastinate at work).

Like I said, it's real hokey, but it worked for me. Learning for the sake of learning.

At this point I'm just hoping that all the schools are aware of these changes and will take them into account when looking at scores from August 2026 onward :/

@ScienceAlex These tips are fantastic! Thanks!

(A): Clarissa agrees, Myungsook is silent on the matter.

Note: M is disagreeing with the second sentence of C's statement ("No observation is worth...").

(B): C has no opinion. M disagrees.

(C): Neither state an opinion on this.

(D): C disagrees, M agrees.

C: "An observation is not worth careful consideration unless it can be quantified."

M: "...can be done only when the observation has been thoroughly explored."

(E): C agrees. M doesn't have an opinion.

Thus, (D) is correct.

First step: Highlight EXCEPT in the stem.

Next, break down each claim in the stim:

• European music (EM) has had a strong influence throughout the world.

• EM is not defined by its original function.

• EM's original function has, over time, become an aspect of each genre.

• EM contains sufficient coherence such that the only defining force of EM is EM itself.

• As such, each EM song can stand independently of its original function.

I was immediately drawn to (D) because the term "unintelligible" spoke to me, but I went through PoE anyway:

(A): Eliminated.

Stim says EM has had a strong influence, not the strongest influence.

(B): Eliminated.

Stim says "one reason" EM has had a strong influence, so expansionism could totally be another reason.

(C): Eliminated.

The stim tells us nothing about Chinese music, and the AC tells us nothing about EM.

(D): Substitute "unintelligible" with synonym "incoherent" to better match the stim, and we get:

Music that is incoherent when presented independently of its original function tends to be the most sophisticated music.

Why is this incompatible with the stim?

Because the stim says that "each composition has so much internal coherence that the music depends only on itself." Earlier in the stim, we're told that music which isn't defined by its original function is a sophisticated achievement.

(E): Eliminated.

This could be true. "Some works of art" is so, so vague compared to the stim, which only discusses EM.

Thus, the answer is (D).

First, we do an analysis/summary of the stim:

Premise 1: Direct-mail ads cause millions to buy products via phone or online.

Premise 2: If such products are bought in physical stores instead, it causes pollution [due to driving to the store].

Conclusion: Direct-mail ads are not bad for the environment.

Let's go through PoE next:

(A): This is a weakener, which states that direct mail also encourages in-store shopping. Eliminated.

(B): Hmm. This one has potential. If people were going to buy the products regardless of the method (in person, online, or phone), it bolsters the claim that without direct mail, there would be more pollution. This is because people would be left with only one option: Driving to the store, which causes pollution. I like it, but let's put a pin in it after a review of the other ACs.

(C): What do magazines have to do with anything? Eliminated.

(D): I don't care why the company sends out direct-mail ads. Eliminated.

(E): I also don't care about the proportion of people that buy from direct-mail ads vs. people who don't. Furthermore, it's possible that the direct-mail ads are causing people to buy stuff in-store more frequently. This tells me nothing about the effect direct-mail ads have on the environment. Eliminated.

I've eliminated all except (B), so that must be the one!

I whiffed this one because I was focused on the conclusion also referencing beliefs. I definitely would've chosen (A) if it read something like "...so a belief in unicorns is false." But alas.

Paid too much attention to the structure and not enough attention to the flaw itself.

@babachanianaren905 Written languages are, in fact, a form of technology. The definition of technology is the application of knowledge to solve problems or make life easier or get around limitations.

Problem: Human memory is limited and oral histories are unreliable.

Solution: Invent a system where older information can be easily referenced.

Spoken language isn't considered technology because it's an instinct for humans, but written language was invented.

Think of it like a programming language. Coding languages are widely regarded as a form of technology -- but programming languages are just another form of written language.

I got totally thrown off by the stim mentioning comparing programs, meaning two computers and two programs, and so I went with (D).

I also parsed "a chess-playing program" as referring to any hypothetical chess-playing program, not the same chess-playing program.

Got it on BR, though, but I didn't choose it because of the above - I liked it because it wasn't as strong as some of the others ("in general").

How can I do better next time? Ensure I haven't miscounted when a stim discusses pluralities.

@Cathyyyy The assumption isn't "people whose willingness to pay more shows they really need goods." The assumption that the economists make is that "people who really need goods are willing to pay more."

If we negate that statement - people who really need goods are unwilling to pay more - then the economists' argument falls apart.

My immediate reaction was "The answer is (E) because it's phrased stupidly and is difficult to parse."

But instead of going with my gut, I went through PoE like a good lil LSAT student.

(A): Maybe? I don't think it's an alternate explanation though. We'll put a pin in this one and come back later.

(B): The conclusion is the last sentence of the stim, so this claim is definitely not the overall conclusion. Eliminated.

(C): The advocate doesn't dispute this claim at all - he's the one who makes the claim. Eliminated.

(D): Same as above - the author makes this claim, he doesn't dispute it.

(E): I'm still leaning towards this one purely based on vibes, but let's break it down into its components:

• "It"

  • What does "it" refer to? The author's statement in the question stem ("willingness to pay is not proportional to need.")

• "denies a claim"

  • What claim is being denied? The economists' claim that if a person is willing to pay more for a thing, it proves that they really need that thing.

• "that the argument takes to be assumed in the reasoning it rejects."

  • What is doing the rejecting? The author's argument.

  • What reasoning does the author's argument reject? The economists' logic behind their position that price gouging = cool.

  • What is the economists' logic? Gouging is efficient because people who pay more for goods really need those goods.

  • What is the assumption made in the economists' logic? People who really need goods ARE willing to pay more. If the negation is true, then the economists' reasoning falls apart. And that is exactly what the author is trying to do.

• Strung together, we have: [The author's statement] denies [the economists' claim] that [the author] takes to be assumed in [the economists' logic], which [the author] rejects.

• Plain(er) English: The author noticed an assumption that the economists' made in their logic, and the author's statement says that this assumption is false.

Vibes were right!

Note: While parsing out (E) sucks and is annoying, this is literally how to read dense legalese. I frequently need to separate paragraph-long sentences into phrases and clauses, removing parentheticals or unnecessary info between commas, replacing overly-long descriptors with generic terms (like kicking things up), etc. Being able to parse bizarrely-phrased ACs like this one is a critical skill for anyone in the legal field.

I knew immediately I was looking for an AC which had reasoning along the lines of "correlation =/= causation, because reverse could be true."

First, we go into a shallow dive of the ACs and whenever something just... doesn't feel right, it gets eliminated.

So (B), (C), and (E) were eliminated based on vibes a shallow dive.

(B) doesn't deal with reversal of correlation/causation.

(C) doesn't really deal with correlation/causation at all.

(E) Still no reversal of correlation/causation here.

I'm now stuck between (A) and (D). I started by rephrasing (A) in the same structure as the stim.

(A) can be restructured as:

The fact that habitual readers tend to be verbally skilled doesn't prove that reading produces verbal skill, for having strong verbal skills encourages people to read more.

Stim vs. restructured (A):

Stim: X and Y often correlate, but that isn't proof that X causes Y, because Y could also cause X.

(A): X (reading) and Y (strong verbal skills) tend to correlate, but that doesn't prove that X causes Y, because Y causes X.

Upon closer examination of (D), I see that it adds a third factor of "play more frequently." So it's not that one. Thus, (A) is correct.

I started by eliminating (A) and (B), because the stim doesn't mention how difficult Beethoven found composing while deaf, nor does it mention poor/high quality (it only mentions an introspective quality).

(C) was eliminated next. If Beethoven was not deaf, he still could've become more introspective over time due to other reasons, such as age, reading a certain book, finding religion, etc. [After review, I also see that I missed the music vs. personality quality! I still think my initial reasoning for eliminating (C) is also appropriate here, however.]

I initially liked (D), as the stim said that the hearing loss continued gradually. However! The last sentence of the stim says "complete hearing loss ... gave [Beethoven's] later music an introspective quality." Okay, so since the conclusion refers to complete deafness, then (D) is not correct either.

(E) is the only one left that I like. It's not too strong ("probably" instead of "definitely"), and it's not overly specific about how his music would be different.

First, I eliminated (C) because it's irrelevant.

Second, I did a shallow dive into the ACs. (D) was interesting upon first read, but the negation is:

The proposed legislation as it is framed was meant to satisfy the right and/or the left.

Gut instinct: Not this one. It doesn't address how "too specific" and "too vague" are mutually exclusive. A thing can be too specific in some places and too vague in other places. Moving on.

Oh hey, (E) addresses the exact thing that (D) does not! Negation of (E):

The proposed legislation is made up of some overly specific and some overly vague statements.

There we go! Answer is (E).

I got this wrong because I missed a goddamn apostrophe and I'm so annoyed.

I should've noticed the difference between "one of the literary critic's beliefs" vs. "one of the literary critics' beliefs".

I thought "one of the literary critics' beliefs..." referred to "Critic A disagreeing with Critic B" instead of "Belief A and Belief B, both beliefs held by the entire group of critics." Since the stim only mentioned one group of critics, I quickly eliminated (D).

Note to self: Pay more attention to apostrophes.

Oh man, that's a mood. I have turbo ADHD and I have to tell myself "learn 2 read idiot" all the time, haha. I generally do well with color-coded organizational tools, so I make extensive use of the highlighter tool.

Sometimes I use it as a visual aid to help break up large paragraphs of text or densely-worded stims. I'll alternate between two colors for premises, and then the conclusion is a third color to make it stand out. I also started highlighting key words in the question stem so I don't mistake an MBT for a MSS, or an NA for a SA question. I highly recommend highlighting words in the stem like "EXCEPT" or "DISAGREE" too. I used to muck up "except" questions because I forgot I was looking for the AC that is inconsistent with the stim/question stem.

I like using the highlighter to pick out key words (which may or may not end up being important) on a shallow dive before really trying to parse out the stim. For example, I will highlight conditional indicators (e.g. "all," "some," "the only"). I also highlight descriptors and qualifiers to make sure I don't conflate different groups of things. For example: Premise 1 refers to "elephants," but Premise 2 refers to "Asian elephants" -- now I know there's a sub/superset aspect to pay attention to, and so I might be looking for whole-to-part flaw or confusing sufficient/necessary to be addressed in the ACs (or a flaw in the stim itself).

Another thing that helped me was taking a break from timed adaptive drills. Instead I do untimed drills of only rank 5 difficulty questions. I just spend as much time as I need on each question, carefully picking them apart, pausing to get some real work done (I definitely don't do LSAT prep when I'm supposed to be doing my day job, nope, certainly not I), then coming back to it later with a fresh mind. It sounds counterintuitive, but consciously practicing deliberate and detailed reading may help you to easily and subconsciously read this way when under timed conditions.

I hope any or all of this helps!