Can someone please help with #16 (C) ? I think (C) has a factual error because the passage does not state that transistors can be made smaller than they currently are -- instead it states that natural chemical processes can "function like transistors." Transistors are defined as the electronic devices that make up computer chips, so these cannot get smaller but new technology like peptides can maybe bypass this limitation.

#help

If answer choice A was reworded to state that property owners are OFTEN allowed exemptions from restrictive zoning laws, would this be a viable answer?

If the council "often" allowed exemptions wouldn't that prove that property rights are important to them, thus resolving the conflict? In my reasoning, "often" would override the fact that the restrictive laws are the default. Just looking to understand if this would successfully overcome A being a "trap" answer. Thanks!

For Question 23, does the author have to answer a question in order to be "concerned with answering" the question? I'd argue that Author B is indeed concerned with answering whether Whorfs claims are based on better evidence than previously thought (Answer D) even though the result is inconclusive #help

Congrats!! Definitely a lot to be proud of

E is certainly the best answer, but before reading E I thought C was also viable because if the non-volunteers are older, that in itself might be the reason they show more signs of aging than people who do volunteer. If E wasn't a choice would C be a viable answer?

#help (Added by Admin)

Wondering the same, thanks for putting it to the community!

Thank you so much Juliet and canihazJD! Very cool feature. So, to be sure, I can't tell exactly how many seconds I stayed on a problem after answering it, but I can roughly approximate it by seeing how long the green (or red) bar is compared to my total time on the question?

Perfect, thank you!!!

Isn't the danger with D that you don't necessarily need the employment rate to increase in order for GNP to increase? For instance, what if the people who are injured are high earners, so even if overall employment is down, GNP can still increase with just a few injured people earning a ton of money to make up for the employment loss. This seems like just the type of subtly that would make an answer choice eliminatable in other circumstances

#help (Added by Admin)

Question 27 confused me because I thought the description of the "natural way of reasoning" ended around line 56 with "Ideally...". In other words I took those last three sentences to be the author's view rather than a description of the "natural way of reasoning." I guess though that the colon extends all the way to the end of the passage and author B never expresses their view? Seems unclear where the "natural way" ends and the author view starts. Did any one else struggle with this ? #help

Following. I think it really comes down to recognizing weaknesses, which at least for me don't seem to correspond to question type, so it's a struggle to figure out exactly what to work on

I'm having the same issue, also stuck around -4 on LR. I don't think my weaknesses fall along the lines of Question type, which is unfortunately how most test prep companies including 7sage categorize them. I wish there was a resource that organized the questions by argument type, which might better help to observe trends and weaknesses

#help I'm a little confused by C because my interpretation was that the first sentence ("Siobhan did not tell a lie") was a premise that we should take as fact and that the second sentence ("it was not wholly truthful") was the conclusion, with "the statement was true" being an additional premise.

This doesnt change D being the right answer but I am curious what others think about this because it does make C initially look viable if it's trying to prove Not Wholly Truthful rather than Not Lie as JY indicates

#help I cannot for the life of me understand Q19. Based on Passage A, the recourse comedians have is simply badmouthing, refusals to work etc....how is any of this recouping costs? The incentive to create new jokes is simple that there is significant enough risk to stealing jokes (due to the informal enforcement system) that makes it unlikely. The only way I can see a comedian recouping costs is if they literally extort/blackmail the comedian for stealing their joke....is that is what is being implied?

Is this an example of a question where the correct answer is both Sufficient and Necessary? #help

I was actually down to D vs E. D is saying "if it produces more than a little energy, it definitely will split" whereas E is saying "if it produces considerable energy, then it is likely to split." Put this way, it's a bit easier to see why E is the more conservative and correct answer

I think the frustration of this question is that while E is clearly the best answer, the assumption that makes it correct (only one general assembly) seems like it could just as easily be the flaw we need to look out for in another question. Not hard to imagine a question where jumping to the assumption that there's only one general assembly when it doesn't say so explicitly could lead to a wrong answer

Is a statement that begins with "some" considered to be a generalization on LSAT? I'm wondering if this could be a quick way to eliminate (B) and (E). "Some painters" feels less like a generalization that "all painters" would be #help

Even though (B) is clearly the best answer, I felt I still had to read through all the other options because there is no indication that the bones Penwick found are the alleged bones in question

I think another flaw in this argument that also leads to (D) is simply that the premises only deal with "when judged do not maintain strict control" but the conclusion expands out to "whenever lawyers engage in such behavior". All we need to weaken this argument is a scenario other than judges loosing control that might have a different result.

Based on the statement "the completed apartment complex would strengthen Sierra's economy" would it not be correct to also diagram this conditionally as "complete apartment --> strengthen economy." The contrapositive would also seem to hold true. Statements like these start to confuse me on the difference between conditional and causality statements. Can a causal statement also be conditional? #help