Another trivial flaw: Just because no officer in the precinct has taken gifts, it doesn't mean that no other people in the precinct have taken gifts. ie) janitors could have taken gifts.

Thanks. I also found this on another website, too.

"The LSAT is not curved - it is equated. That is, the difficulty of the questions is determined by giving them in experimental sections of previous tests (this is why there is an experimental section). That known difficulty is then used to set the scoring key so that any given score correlates to the same level of performance across all tests. (The "margin of error" that LSAC releases with your test results is a description of the statistical certainty of this correlation.)

This is important because it adjusts for any demographic differences that may occur between test administrations due to economic fluctuations or preferences for a certain time of year. If the test was simply curved, one could play the system by determining which administration was likely to have the most lenient curve. Instead, all administrations have identically difficult tests, within LSAC's stated margin of error."

Thanks for your help!

Upon BRing, I could also notice that even JY agrees many questions are tougher than usual on these newer PTs..

I believe the sun here does mean Neptune in the answer choice (E).

Merriam Webster’s definition of sun: any star that has planets which move around it

Since Pluto was ejected from orbit around Neptune (its sun) when Triton was captured by Neptune’s gravity (Meaning it failed to form in orbit around the sun exclusively), Pluto is not a true planet.

Not that it changes the answer, but just wanted to mention it.

I thought (C) was wrong also because it qualifies day-care workers to have to work as employees of day-care centers. What if people work as freelance day-care workers without being employed by the day-care centers?

Another trivial flaw in the stimulus is that we do not know whether Lester works at Leila’s Electronics. Technically, we cannot just straight assume Lester works there just because the sentence about him is stated afterwards. If Lester works for another company, all the conditions in the first sentence become irrelevant.

@ Very different.

Does statement 1 establish a positive correlation between chocolate consumption and depression? (JY says so in PT72 S2 Q14 explanation)

If so, why does JY say the statement "Ones who improved the most were the ones who learned to write the most automatically" in PT47 S1 Q26 does not establish a correlation?

Thank you so much for your help!

My question is not whether "low/middle range chocolate eaters are equally or more likely to feel depressed than those who ate the most"

I'm asking what if "low range chocolate eaters felt more depressed than middle range chocolate eaters"?

1. Those who ate the most chocolate were the most likely to feel depressed.

2. The more chocolate one consumed, the more likely he/she felt depressed.

Aren’t these two different in meaning? Because for the first statement we don’t know what happened to the middle/low range chocolate eaters..

But we still translate both of them as..

Chocolate Consumption –positively correlated with– Depression

Thoughts?

So in a sense, the answer choice (C) is saying the premise is false?

Premise:

/Widespread agreement -> /reasonable to allow

According to the answer choice (C):

( /Widespread agreement and reasonable to allow ) -> Okay

Does this mean it's okay to attack the premise since it's a flaw question?

I thought JY’s explanation of people in Georgia voting for politicians in Detroit was a little bit confusing.

Argument: (P): most people oppose tariffs -> (C): politicians will win more votes if they oppose tariffs

Negation of (A): Supporters of tariffs are significantly more likely to base their vote on tariffs. Opponents of tariffs are significantly less likely to base their vote on tariffs.

Because the opponents of tariffs (most people) will not care about tariffs as much as the supporters of tariffs when voting, the argument is wrecked. Therefore, (A) is the correct NA.

(A) is a correct answer choice only because the Qstem asks which one most helps to explain the discrepancy.

Like amipp170 said below, we do not know if the deer in the stimulus were a part of 'most wildlife' in (A).

I guess I’ll be better off cramming some pts now rather than taking them the week of the test. Thanks!

I got tripped up by (C).

When a vehicle is at a stoplight, its speed is 0, which is analogous to a power plant emitting 0 pollutants.

I chose (C) by mistakenly swapping the idea of speed for the idea of pollutant emission, thinking cars do emit low pollutants at the stoplight.

Hairless dogs were not transported from another country to both Mexico and Peru centuries ago.

Would this be an alternative NA?

difficult...

@ Are many of you applying for the December LSAT before the Oct 18 deadline, despite not knowing your score until, perhaps, the 20th?

I registered for the December exam in case my preferred test center gets filled up. I'm going to withdraw the exam if I like my September score or take the exam otherwise.

Steve Jobs..

Negation of NA wrecks the argument.

Negation of (A): gardeners plant around the same time the first warm spell of spring or earlier.

I made a bad assumption that the gardeners could plant way earlier than the first warm spell of spring, harvest even before the frost happens, and thus get better results.

If this is true, it doesn’t wreck the argument. However, even granting this absurd assumption, we cannot ignore the first half of the negation which if true, would totally wreck the argument.

Therefore, (A) still is the right NA answer choice.

(B) is a necessary assumption answer choice and (C) is a sufficient assumption answer choice.

Definition of household: all the people living together in a house

Just because the number of households moved out outnumbered the number of households moved in, it does not mean the total number of residents declined. We need to know the number of people in each household in order to conclude anything. (D) clarifies it and thus strengthen the argument.

This question is bad in that (B) requires us to assume that the people in the control group work in the environments in which disturb the ability to detect scent less than the sulfur-emitting factories. (i.e. cubicles)

However, whereas (B) can weaken the argument if we make the assumption, (A) doesn’t weaken the argument at all as it doesn’t point out any differences between the two groups. Therefore, (B) is a better weakening answer than (A).

(B) only explains the first half of the phenomenon. How about the reason why chimps rarely make threat gestures after they attack? Do the LSAT writers want us to assume that the attacks release anger so that they no longer need to make threats anymore? If so, why would they even include the last sentence?

So had (E) said, "Those who use sunscreens most regularly are people who are the most susceptible to skin cancer,” would it be an alternative weakening answer choice?

Sort of feels like the famous Dramamine question, but I’m still not 100% sure it would weaken the argument.

Argument: /Report -> /Capable or (/PI and /500)

(E): /Report -> /PI or /500

It is wrong because it could be the case /R -> (/Capable) and (PI and 500)