Conclusion: Egyptians were the first to produce alcoholic beverages, and not the Babylonians.

Premises: Archaeologists discovered a cup from 500 years earlier than the Babylonians that depicted a brewery and had traces of beer.

My first red flag at this stimulus was the potential discrepancy in the cup's production date and the date it was last used. Think about a well-made object: even though it was made 500 years ago, it could still be used today! What if the imagery on the side was just interpreted as a brewery retrospectively or painted on much later, or the cup was a family heirloom that was created in 2000BC but was used to drink beer in 1000BC?

I was stuck between A and D during my drill, and I incorrectly chose A- here's how I can discount it now. First, just because something was only created or used by one member of a society doesn't mean that it can't be attributed to the society. For example, Benjamin Franklin invented the Fire Department- even if his original fire department was the only one to exist in American history and the concept was re-discovered in 3000 years by another society, it would have still been attributed to the Americans, since an American made it. So, even if only one Egyptian family made beer, Egyptians as a whole were still the first society that contained beer-making people.

I don't think that D is a perfect answer, but it definitely best answers the question. Something to keep track of all the time while working on the LSAT is Fact vs Belief vs Knowledge- how do we know that the Egyptians were DEFINITIVELY the first ones to create alcohol? After all, before the discovery of this cup, we DEFINITIVELY believed that the Babylonians were the first to create alcohol! Who's to say that tomorrow we don't discover that the people of Atlantis used copper stills to make hard liquor?

Egyptians and their cup is the first KNOWN example of alcohol consumption, but it is not definitively the first instance of alcohol consumption until there is some proof that it did not occur before.

E tempted me enough that I swapped to it from C in Blind Review- but here's how I broke this down after confirming that C was the correct answer.

First, what is the judge saying? (the question) is a question that judges are well equipped to handle. Why can the judge be certain of this? If they are not well equipped to handle answering the question, there would be something wrong with the legal system- and there is little reason to suppose there is something wrong with the legal system!

This follows the structure of a conclusion being followed by pieces of support. The judge says this. why? because of this 1 and this 2. So, the main conclusion is that "judges should be well equipped to handle the question of whether a minister's decision is reasonable."

This is a deceptively tricky question: first, let's lay out the facts.

Lipid Profile B: Greater risk of heart disease

Lipid Profile A: Lesser risk of heart disease

During the study, LP.B decreased cholesterol, while LP.A had no change of cholesterol

Another observed effect: 40% of LP.A swapped over to LP.B on the low fat diet!

Overall, this means that the risk of heart disease- completely unconnected to the cholesterol levels, changed! We need to pay attention to this initial fact that B has a higher risk of heart disease.

I'm proud of myself for marking 23 and moving on- definitely a good idea to identify the timesink questions and come back to them fully if you somehow have significant time at the end of a RC section.

23 states: imagine pesticide X replaced pesticide P in the trials mentioned in the passage. For the first treated trial, X would just reduce the amount of Cyc. while not affecting the amount of Typh., unlike what P did. So in this case, the population of Typh. is still present and eating the Cyc. mites. In the second untreated trial, the predation mechanism happens as described through the passage. Since we know that only Cyc. damage the strawberry plants and Typh. eat as many Cyc. as possible, what can we infer?

In both situations, Typh. would consume Cyc. to the level of control where they would not harm the strawberry plants. A says this exactly- the latter (Cyc.) would be effectively controlled in both the treated and the untreated plots.

I caught the illegal reversal of sufficient and necessary, but not the fact and knowledge flaw!

To explain this, we must first explain 1. the rule (that anything before 3pm is credited for the day of) and then add on the assumption that the character KNOWS this is the rule. In fact, we have no idea whether Alicia knows this rule comes into effect, and we can't deduce what she does know by applying this rule.

For this reason, B is incorrect- it matches the first reversal flaw, but has no trail to the fact knowledge flaw.

C addresses the fact knowledge flaw more clearly- because George knows this one thing (that Helen is to resign) he must know that he will be promoted to supervisor. Additionally, it is necessary that Helen must leave if George is to be promoted, but her departure is not sufficient to guarantee his promotion.

In my first read-over, E seemed like such an easy beyond-the-scope elimination question. How wrong I was!

It is a noted statement that as many people consume caffeine as any other psychoactive substance. E fits right into this: it names alcohol as psychoactive, and states that not more people consume alcohol than caffeine- exactly fitting to the premise in the stimulus.

The stimulus sets out the following conditional: if the evidence is NOT disastrous -> fulfill duty.

We are looking for two following "tags" in each answer choice, first the evidence being not definitively disastrous, and second following through on fulfilling the duty.

A is correct because there is no definitive evidence that the action of not raising the students grade will be disastrous. This is not definitive because of words like "might". This triggers the conditional, and it can be recommended that the teacher should not fulfill the duty, which is also mentioned in the answer choice.

B is incorrect because it illegally negates the conditional and leaves it incomplete. First, we are looking for the action being not disastrous- but we only get information about the action being disastrous, and can't reach the conclusion that the action should not be taken.

C, while appealing, requires one more assumption than D, which can be effectively deduced. C isn't wrong because clouding and tainting are forms of self-deception, but rather that it requires the reader to ASSUME that clouding and tainting are forms of self-deception! Very subtle trick that feeds off of the binary nature of the stimulus.

If D didn't exist, C would be the "next best" answer, but we aren't asked to look for the next best answer- D can be inferred exactly by breaking down the stimulus. if A -> B, if not A -> C. This can be reduced to: if not A -> B, if not B -> A. If your experience is NOT tainted (not B), then you are clouded by illusion (A).

8 - E is incorrect because it is too "big picture" to discuss the main point- while it is true that the author believes examining only written information produces inaccurate historical accounts, this is not the main point because it completely ignores the case study in the second half of the passage: the fact that non-traditional evidence in the form of the work of Chinese settlers on the coast.

14 - This question is best answered in the following method: first, what is the author's claim in the last sentence? That the Asian settlers' inputs (swamp reclamation, native plant agriculture) caused the outcome of today, which is that 80% of the land is irrigated. As JY says, why do I have to look at the past actions of Chinese settlers to get a full understanding of this?

C is incorrect because it doesn't strengthen this causal claim: the soil's fertility when irrigated might be useful for agribusiness, but it doesn't connect back to the fact that the growth of irrigation in the region is caused by the actions of Chinese settlers. This is just an auxiliary benefit, not a direct connection.

B is correct because it gives an example of a plot of land that was once owned by original Chinese settlers that is still now being used for specialty crop businesses. This lends credence to the fact that what the Chinese settlers did to swampy land or arid land in the past still holds true to what is being done today.

7 - B is incorrect because of the lack of description of "Koreans"- as JY says... Korean tourists? Koreans of other sorts? NO! This passage specifically concerns itself with the effects of the Korean workers visiting the US, which is adequately represented by D.

10 - C is incorrect because it is an inaccurate representation of the final passage. First, what is said about ethnic communities of immigrant derivation? First, they nee more than just a knowledge of history and culture to strengthen their ethnic identity. Second, one of the most effective means of empowerment is an identification of and participation in struggles in their country of origin.

A accurately represents this: such communities benefit from connecting with their countries of origin.

C relies on more abstract information earlier in the passage, from around line 44: that the Pico struggle was strong because of its reliance on greater human issues. This is not about the ethnic communities of immigrant derivation- rather, it is about the Pico struggle itself. It is wrong because it does not accurately address the group in the question.

11 - E is incorrect simply because we have no evidence of the Chinese workers' problems, so we can't compare the responses of the Pico workers to the others.

You are looking to find the reason why the author referred to the group of Chinese immigrant workers. Reading before this mention, you can see the phrase "new roles can be played by recent immigrants, particularly working-class immigrants". What is this new role? Globalizing the perspective of their communities.

C is correct because it adequately answers the question of what the mention of Chinese immigrants does- it offers an example of the type of role and action (globalizing the perspective of their new communities) that occurred between the Pico and the Chinese.

Q24:

While the author may be scornful of the law itself, referring to it as bizarre, irrational, and unable to find truth, they are only critical of the lawyers- saying that they were standing in the way of progress (24-25).

Q26:

A tests your ability to truly exclude assumptions and inferences, with B's reference for rigidity being directly supported around line 54: "evidence should be admitted unless there are clear grounds of policy for excluding it" - this can be cleanly interpreted as "less rigidity" for the inclusion of evidence.

C is incorrect because of a nuanced and meta reason, it being that it is not explicitly stated in the passage while B is. C can probably be inferred, and there's a chance C is true, but the lineage of these doctrines is not a point of discussion in the passage, meaning it is not supported as strongly as B.

I agree with hiding answer and timing information to try and remove myself from the bias of just choosing the answer I already chose, accepting my previous reasoning, and moving on. Typically in BR, I find it best to re-work the question and answer methods in depth to really make sure that I can locate where I made an error in case I get the question wrong and have to review. I also find value in re-reading some answer choices that I eliminated during my drill and completely re-evaluating them more with more scrutiny to eliminate them permanently- this has also led me to catch some errors, mainly in the strength of qualifiers or a tangle of negating words.

I think that if increasing familiarity with the test is the goal, then you should hide the answer and COMPREHENSIVELY re-evaluate the questions without a time constraint in blind review.

Q26:

E is incorrect because El. disagrees that social change was primarily responsible, rather that it contributed alongside the economic changes in society (the rise of capitalism and the requirement of a labor force to be able to purchase luxuries if capitalism aimed to sell them).

A is correct because of slim statements made by the two authors: First, Dr. mentions that the abolitionist ideas "cut across class", implying that the ideology was adopted by both the rich and the poor. El. echoes this statement by saying that "forced labor began to feel inappropriate and counterproductive for employers", implying that the richer ruling-class agreed with the working class about the shortfalls of slavery.

The nuance between A and B is incredibly difficult to identify: I chose C in my timed section and swapped to B in Blind Review, but still missed A.

B implies that the statement (life depends on the presence of elements) supports the other statement offered as a premise (our sun has high abundance of these elements), but that is not true. In fact, both of these statements independently support the conclusion. Think about it this way: both of these things need to be true, and knowing the first premise that we are asked to label does not strengthen our ability to know the second premise.

This question completely broke me and made no sense through both my timed section and blind review. It only started to make sense with the videos!

The question is asking to strengthen the biologist's hypothesis, which is:

bird species eliminated -c-> rise in spiders

In order to do this, we must strengthen the connection between the fact that the birds are damaging to the spiders' population. How can we do this? First, we understand that the birds ate the spiders and stole their spiderwebs, two negative pressures on the populations of spiders.

Next, we are looking for any additional factors that go with this causal chain. B, C, and D can be eliminated because they don't have anything to do with this direct connection that birds cause spider populations to decrease.

I think that E is the strongest trap answer choice because it takes a step before the causal chain- the snakes eliminate the birds! But... this has nothing to do with the biologist's hypothesis, which is that the birds ate the spiders. Not only this, but we are also required to assume that eliminating the snakes will have an effect on the bird populations.

A offers another compounding reason as to why the spiders' population felt downward pressure from the birds- not only did the birds eat the spiders and steal their shelters, but they also ate their food before they could get to it! This strengthens the idea that while the birds were on the island, the population of spiders was kept in check.

I didn't even understand the flaw until JY explained B, so this was definitely one of the more difficult questions for me on this practice test. I chose D and stuck with it in my blind review, partially due to a misreading of B, but also because I diagrammed the flaw in the stimulus like follows:

K believes X. K must believe Y. why? if X happens, then Y happens.

I think this comes down to me misunderstanding the "car show will not be held in major snow" as a limiting condition, something that must be true and can't be disputed. However, even if this is true, it can be disputed as to whether K believes this is the case.

D is incorrect because it first fails to distinguish the strength of the statements- probably and might. It can be fully discounted by understanding the flaw- while it is a flawed statement, it is flawed because of a most / sum set distinction and not due to the "must believe" flaw.

B is the correct answer because it parallels the stimulus. Bo says the backyard is poorly drained. What can be inferred just from this statement? Absolutely NOTHING about raspberries... but the author chooses to do so anyway!

This is an extremely difficult question, not only because of the subtlety of the assumption, but also because of the opaqueness of the answer choices. Answer choice E is an easy one to choose if you fully do not understand what it is saying, which is what happened both in my timed section and in my blind review.

What E is really saying:

Some businesses that meet high standards would not meet said high standards if they could be profitable while not meeting these standards. That being said, if a business didn't need to meet the standards for profit's sake, they wouldn't.

While this is tempting, it doesn't address the assumption directly- which is the disconnect between ethical actions and meeting high ethical standards. The explanation above regarding Breaking Bad is a good one, but I thought about this in the term of BP or Exxon Mobil. After creating an oil spill in the first place, BP or Exxon take the role of the "good guys" by cleaning up the mess... that they made in the first place! This ethical action (cleanup) doesn't certify that the actions of these companies meet high moral standards, and that's precisely where the assumption you have to attack lies.

A is another appealing answer that doesn't address the assumption, but lives just close enough to it to be tempting. Some businesses with high ethical standards don't actually meet those standards... sure... what does this have to do with ethical actions being sufficient to determine if a business has high ethical standards?

B is a hard-to-find correct answer. B weakens the argument by saying that there is something else that is sufficient to determine if a business meets high ethical standards- just abstaining from doing bad things! Contrast this with what is said in the passage- "ethical actions certify that a business has high ethical standards". Not only does it disconnect this, but it suggests that in order to determine if a business has high ethical standards, it requires something coming from a WHOLE OTHER DIRECTION to certify.

100% agree, quitting energy drinks and alcohol, locking myself out of Instagram after 5 minutes per day, and drinking more water and taking a daily multivitamin made my mind so much clearer during studying and exams. The extra points gained after you make these changes aren't free, but feeling good while studying and test-taking is half the battle.

e: Also, foam earplugs are a complete game changer. Blocking out each additional distraction just makes it that much easier to focus on the test.

Q19: Chose D, was B.

D is incorrect because the information provided in the answer choice (that any choice made by a CEO must not be for the benefit of the greater good) is a stretch and not explicitly stated. It is totally plausible that the author would agree with the idea that the decisions made by a for-profit company COULD POSSIBLY benefit others outside of the corporation, and saying that it is highly unlikely that they could possibly benefit society is beyond the scope of the passage.

B is correct because of line 22 mentioning fiduciary obligation. This means that the CEO of the company is legally obligated to make decisions that they believe will benefit the company financially. The classification of "owner operated" and "noncharitable" separates these corporations from owner-operator or nonprofits by separating out the goals (profit, not charity) and roles of important individuals (owner and executive). Think Coca Cola- the CEO of Coca Cola, a non-owner operated and non-charitable organization, should make decisions according to their fiduciary obligation.

A is a trap that is also incorrect because of line 25: organizations EXCEPT charitable organizations have this fiduciary obligation.

Conclusion: Money is NOT REAL

Why? If everyone stopped believing in money, it would disappear.

This is a tricky distinction between A and D. The author's conclusion hinges on proving that money is not real by attributing traits to it that would not be attributed something that IS real.

A correctly identifies this and says that a real thing, even if everyone stops believing in it, is still there. For example: Think of the Sahara Desert. Under the author's argument, if everyone stopped believing in the Sahara Desert, it would still exist and NOT disappear. This is a trait that a REAL thing has, that money does not in fact have, making it NOT REAL.

D is incorrect, but very tricky. Instead of the Sahara Desert, now think of Atlantis. If everyone believed in Atlantis, would it be real? Nope, because we couldn't go to the bottom of the sea and find it, no matter what. Everyone believes in Atlantis, but it is in fact NOT real. This is not something that the argument assumes, and it misstates the relationship between belief and existence.

This is a definitely structured more like a parallel method of reasoning question. I ended up choosing B by getting tripped up by the language (the implication that the action of water cleanup was being done in the stimulus and having little to no benefit from it making people less trusting of water cleanup in the future). This is definitely a case of making two mistakes and not being able to concretely prove B while not being able to comprehensively eliminate A, all while going off vibes. I even had A chosen until the last second in my drill, where I went back and read it and swapped to B.

A is correct because it mirrors the threat that if you don't have your strong facts organized, then your advice won't be taken even if it's quite dire.

B is incorrect because it simply isn't parallel- instead of mirroring the "be prepared, or else there will be a worse backlash" principle, it moreso reads like: "be prepared and use calm langauge. if you're prepared and use strong language, there will be worse backlash", further drawing the answer away from the principle.

I've found that hydration is more important than caffeination in my testing. Without being properly hydrated, I feel like my brain is walking through mud while reading and I'm unable to accurately break down arguments into parts. Hydration through the test (both a lot of water the day before and water and a gatorade the day of) feels like the difference between me looking at words on a page and me understanding and reading full arguments.

As for caffeination, I've tried PTs with multiple levels, from energy drinks to regular coffee to green tea. I've found that green tea (specifically a bottle of Ito En Oi Ocha) brings me to the level I need without any anxiety or real crash through the test. I was far too nervous with energy drinks, to the point where I cut them out of my diet completely. Coffee was okay, but I felt like it didn't provide the calmness that I felt with the green tea.

While we're on the topic of drinks, I'll regretfully climb up on a soapbox and recommend completely giving up alcohol for the duration of your study period. Studies show that it interferes with sleep and I definitely feel more focused after a couple months without it.

I incorrectly chose B because I misunderstood the argument's pieces.

B can vaguely be categorized as a "generalization", a rule that applies to the judgment of all artwork, but the passage does not state that the following statement is an objection- rather it is a rule dictating how that judgment of superiority must be measured.

C accurately expresses this distinction: the claim (execution of artistic visions is superior in some artists) must be understood in a certain manner (must be measured in light of the artist's purposes).

I missed this question and chose A because I fell into the trap of which principle would allow for the fair reduction of violence in television- NOT the principle that deals with the actual conclusion of the argument!

C - It is consistent to support less violence and free speech

Why?

P - damage done by harmful programs is higher than the damage done by loss of free speech

In order to find the principle that most justifies the critic's reasoning, we need to find the principle that strengthens the idea that these two views are not consistent.

Answer Choice B: explicitly states that these two points of view can be reconciled!

No, score preview is not a good investment. Even if you do cancel your score, there's no guarantee that a later scoring test will be higher. In addition, schools only look at your highest LSAT; it's what they can report on their 509 reports, and the scores you see represented in a school's median are the accepted students' highest LSATs, not their lowest or the average of their taken exams.