In the same boat !

Stimulus Explained: The Stimulus lets us know that we have the option of buying two cars the Scorpio Miser (SM) or the standard Scorpio (SS). The difference between the two is that one has a high-efficiently ran engine and therefore is more expensive than the other one. The stimulus lets us know that the difference in purchase price can be made up by savings on fuel AFTER driving 60,000 miles. Another key point is that it says at CURRENT fuel prices. The last point and where we find our flaw is that the stimulus assumes “...if fuel prices fell, it would take fewer miles to reach the break-even point”. That is to say the author believes he will save more quickly if fuel prices are lowered. Believing he will gain more mileage usage with lower fuel prices.

The flaw is simple. By lowering fuel prices it will actually take him longer to make up the purchase price because he will have to drive more miles.

For example. Imagine if the SM and SS were paying the same rate for fuel but making fewer trips to the gas station.

SM= $50 for gas gets 50 Miles

SS= $50 for gas gets 30 Miles

Using these numbers above as an example we can show why he does not save more quickly with lower fuel rates. If both cars were to go on a trip that was 150 miles away. The SM trip would cost $150 dollars and the SS trip would cost $250 being that the SM would need to refill 3 times and the SS would need to refill 5 times. The savings here are $100.

Lets say if fuel prices were to drop to a point where only $40 dollars gets 50miles now. The same trip would now cost the SM 120 and the SS 200 with a savings of only $80. Lower rate of fuel lowers savings which will increase the amount of miles needed to make up the purchase.

This is a major flaw which im not sure has a name but it is very common in every d

great help

congratulations!

@ said:

@ said:

Friend of mine said she’s been waiting for almost 2 hours for a proctor to “arrive” so she can start her test.

This happened to me too. I waited for a proctor for like an hour, then as soon as I was assigned one they disconnected, so I had to re-download the proctor app which put me all the way at the back of the line. Waited over an hour again, all the while unable a hold of anyone on their live support chat or on the phone. Finally got a support person on the chat who was like "Sorry you should receive the next free proctor." All said and done it was basically more than 2 1/2 hours after my appointment that I was finally able to take the test.

Other than that no technical issues, once I got a proctor I didn't have any problems, I just left them on mute and we communicated through the chat box. Test was definitely challenging.

Did the LR section seem more difficult then normal?

22. Suppose that a country seizes a piece of territory with great mineral wealth that is claimed by a neighboring country, with a concomitant risk of failure involving moderate but easily tolerable harm in the long run. Given the information in the passage, the author would most likely say that

A. The country’s actions are consistent with previously accepted views of the psychology of risk-taking

a. To assess this AC we must take a look at what is “previously accepted views” the only other time that the word PREVIOUSLY occurs is in Line 17. “Previously, the notion that rational decision makers prefer risk avoiding choices was considered to apply generally….” It goes on to explain how this notion was epitomized. This scenario in the question stem is alignment with the description of this previously held notion. We know this because the great mineral wealth is told to sufficiently compensate for risks.

B. The new research findings indicate that the country from which the territory has been seized probably weighs the risk factors involved in the situation similarly to the way in which they are weighted by the aggressor nation

a. This is contrary to our findings which highlights the importance of subjective views and understanding these views. We don’t know if weighed risks are the same for both countries. One can misinterpret this in a variety of different ways in light of the last paragraph. This is wrong just because we don’t know if the aggressor nation ever thought that this nation took the island from them previously. This is small assumption test makers are baiting us to make.

C. In spite of surface appearances to the contrary, the new research findings suggest that the objective value of the potential gain is overridden by the risks

a. New research findings does not definitively prove this. This answer choice is in direct opposition to the actual passage.

D. The facts of the situation show that the government is motivated by factors other than objective calculation of the measurable risks and probable benefits

a. This is a complete mischaracterization of the scenario presented. It seems that the “great mineral wealth” and “easily tolerable harm in the long run” all indicate that the risks and probable benefits have been measured. The facts of the situation disagrees with this AC

E. The country’s leaders most likely subjectively perceive the territory as having been taken from their country in the past

a. This was my original answer choice in which I misinterpreted the question stem. I took the statement “.. that is claimed by a neighboring country…” to mean that this was mirroring the scenarios mention in the last paragraph. I assumed that this country was taking back what was once theirs and was claimed by another country. The reason this does not match is because the scenario presented in the question stem seems to match different observations in the passage. The observations noticed with the scenarios in the last paragraph would indicate risks far outweighing the reward. This question stem seems to suggest that the risks are not that harmful and are tolerable, but the gain is very high.

im confused about how the score can be weighted the same unless the amount of difficulty that would be in a normal test be is condensed into three sections which could be very tough to deal with causing you to miss easier questions. im not sure I have the option to take the flex program im considering sticking with the regular test.

When looking at my test scores I dont necessarily get more questions as i progress through the sections so Idk how sufficient one less section would be.

This is a question that can easily be missed if the stimulus is not properly read and understood. In other words while reading it should be obvious that the conclusion doesn’t logically follow. Sometimes you may not be able to actually describe the flaw and you should allow the ACs to lead you. But this cannot happen unless one truly understands the argument structure and its parts.

Stimulus explained: this media consultant foresees that electronic media will put an end to traditional school practices in our culture. He pegs this belief on the fact that traditional school practices came about through students and a teacher gathering around inexpensive books. These inexpensive books were used as a guide for the teachers to instruct there students. Electronic media is taking over communication its becoming more and more popular. Because of this the conclusion is IT IS INEVITABLE THAT THE TRADITIONAL SCHOOL will not survive in culture.

One must truly look at what the author considers to be “traditional school” Traditional school is “… a group of students gathered with a teacher in a classroom”. What facilitated the emergence of this was inexpensive books. So he essentially is saying that electronic media will stop the gathering of a group of students with a teacher because of this technological change in society. So he is obviously creating a necessary relationship here. Which AC d exposes.

a. The premise isn’t the conclusion here which would really be circular reasoning. Although this is a flaw it is not the flaw here in this stimulus.

b. No expert testimony is cited by the media consultant. He doesn’t refer to anyone else really in his transition from premise to conclusion or even in the context.

c. This isn’t his argument. His argument is more along the lines of electronic media replacing books as CURRENTLY HAPPENING. So because it is currently happening it will eventually spill over into the education system because the education system emerged through the communicating of books.

d. This is absolutely correct and perfectly describes the flaw. Communication through books caused the traditional school culture to arise but does that now mean it is necessary for traditional school practices to continue to exist of course not.

e. This was my original answer choice I misinterpreted value with traditional school practices ability to continue to exist. This is not the same thing. The value of the traditional school system is not being weighed here.

An example of it being weighed would be the comparison between the effectiveness of teaching with books vs. teaching with electronic media.

Answer choice E has to be one of the trickiest answer choices ever.

It exploits what some test takers will think the argument is getting at. at first glance it seems that the reasoning in the argument is based on the belief that all injuries stemming from whiplashes can be treated the same way regardless of the cause. So (E) seems to be addressing this. but the argument's reasoning error is that the conclusion is assuming you NEED whiplash injury right after falling or bumping the head. but we havent established that every falling and bumping of the head causes whiplash injury to begin with and thats what answer choice (D) says. Im surprised this question is only 3 stars lol!

The difficulty in this question really comes with the vagueness of the AC but it does require to understand the argument reasoning.

Stimulus Explained: "most of our best sales reps came with an engineering degree but little or no sales experience" reading this we should immediately grasp that this group of people (best sales reps) have two attributes they came WITH an engineering degree and they have little or no sales experience. thats easy to grasp. the difficulty comes in noticing how weak the argument truly is. The conclusion uses this premise to say that we should favor applicants with these two attributes OVER another group. how did we come to the conclusion that they are better than peole who have EXTENSIVE sales experience and people with NO engineering degrees? do we have evidence for favoring them we really do not.

(A) - just because some sales reps completed the degree after being hired doesnt weaken the argument because we arent told that the group under review "BEST SALES REPS" contains anyone that completed their degree after it says they came WITH an engineering degree. so this doesnt weaken the argument.

(B) - is the correct answer choice because it gives us the reason why this "best sales group" has the attributes that it has its simply because most of their staff have these attributes which lessens the strength of the relationship between the premise and the conclusion. We know why the best sales groups have these attributes and the reason isn't enough to say that we should favor them over the other group of applicants laid out in the stimulus.

(C) - I don't see this weakening the argument if anything i see it strengthening the argument.

(D) - who applies to the company and who should be favor when choosing new hires is not the same thing. This argument isnt addressing the reasoning within the argument at all.

(E) - this is just one attribute. if they had both little experience/no experience with an engineering degree this might do some damage to the argument but it doesnt. Also some could represent 1 previous employee still doesnt negate what the stimulus says makes up the group of best sales reps.

overall very difficult question because the correct AC doesnt just jump out at you you have to go and get it.

good stuff! keep it up!

Objective: Our objective here is to reconcile to facts that seem like they are in contradiction to each other.

Fact #1 Firm lists of most wanted traits in their employee’s conscientiousness is very high on this list.

Fact #2 in a 5month period of people its less likely that laid off individuals will find employment when compared to individuals who neglect their work place responsibilities.

These two facts existing simultaneously is very odd and needs to be resolved.

a. Initially I though this did help to solve the seeming contradiction. My reasoning was that more people automatically meant that they would be more likely to get hired. But this is not necessarily true. This isn’t a matte of numbers and proportions. Test makers know this and seek to expose our initial assumptions. Just because there are more people who shirk their workplace responsibilities does not mean that while seeking employees an employer is most likely to chose them OVER someone who is more conscientious. This AC could actually confound the situation even further. For example: if there is a group of 100 shirkers and a group of 10 conscientious individuals and those 10 were having a hard time finding a job and it was easier for shirkers this would still be something needing an explanation because one would think that the demand for the conscientious people would be even HIGHER because there were fewer. This is the correct answer choice because it does nothing to explain the reason why shirkers are more LIKELY to be hired.

b. This helps out with resolving the contradiction. Conscientious people are essentially picky when it comes to choosing their jobs. This could explain the problem we have. Shirkers may be jumping at any job that will take them while conscientious individuals are more hesitant to take a job offer.

c. So even though conscientiousness is high on firms list poor interviews disqualify these individuals from getting job offers. This seems like a reasonable AC to help resolve the issue at hand.

d. They may be lacking something high on firms listed of wanted traits but there credentials although exaggerated is getting them over the hump at a higher rate than conscientious people in a 5 month period.

e. A lack of urgency is causing conscientious people to rely on savings. This causes them to not look for jobs with the same tenacity as shirkers. This helps to explain what appears to be a contradiction.

Sitmulus Explained: The author begins by telling us there is a connection between our mental consciousness and raw physical processes within our body. With this he begins his argument by letting us know physical theories has limitations with what it can explain. It can tell us why physical systems have certain structures and how these structures perform certain actions. The conclusion is that physical theories STRICTLY cannot explain consciousness. This is insinuating that there is more to consciousness than physical systems/functions. But this is still a bit of a jump and needs to be adjusted

a. This answer choice is telling us that physical theories can ONLY explain physical things that are in question or in which the cause may not be understood. If this is assumed, I do not believe the conclusion would logically follow because this has already been stated in the stimulus. This AC is redundant.

b. This is a strong statement that would justify the conclusion given without a doubt. Telling us that something other than just physical structure explanations lets us know that we need more than just physical theories to explain consciousness.

c. Telling us that the physical structures and functions of consciousness is unknown is just another way of telling us that there is currently no PHYSICAL THEORY to explain consciousness but this does not justify the conclusion. This doesn’t mean its true that “NO STRICTLY PHYSICAL THEORY CAN EXPLAIN CONSCIOUSNESS”.

d. This is contrary to the actual stimulus. This goes against the conclusion doesn’t mend/or enhance the argument in any way.

e. Physical terms being necessary for physical theories would not make this conclusion logically follow.

I misread the second sentence to mean the POINT AT WHICH THEY COULD NOT GO ANY FURTHER. The sentence says the point at which they refused to go any deeper. This is two totally different meanings. LSAT writers once again are taking advantage of misinterpretations they know test takers can make.

a. The actual safety of the bridge is not under question here. Given the facts of the stimulus we are not sure if the bridge is unsafe or not. We have very little information if not any to make this determination.

b. The standard they used to stop solidifying the pilings may or not be sufficient. Similar to answer choice A we just don’t know this. Maybe the Venice’s Rialto Bridge is still standing till this day or maybe it collapsed not to long ago.

c. This was my original answer choice. This is a terrible AC being that we know nothing of other bridge builders. It may not seem so but this is a huge assumption that is being made here.

Da Ponte’s standard was after 24 hammer blows the pilings penetration did not exceed two inches. This standard could have been the strictest in his time period there is just no way to actually know.

d. This is an easy answer choice to eliminate being that we are told by the stimulus PRIOR to 1700 which would include after 1588 pilings were driven to the point of refusal.

e. Lets take a close look at what the actual standard of refusal was.

The standard was a point at which the builder decides not to go any further. This may be different for different builders but we are told that Da Ponte’s contemporary standard was no more than 2 inches of penetration after 24 hammer blows. This shows that there is a possibility that it could have gone further. We are not 100% certain of this but the key to this answer choice is the word POSSIBLE.

RC was brutal I tend to do better when it’s earlier in the test. Good luck guys

does anyone know if the proctor tells you if you are at teh 5minute mark?

this method is very good and its an enlightening way of approaching NA which is just a weird task that we arent familiar with prior to studying the LSAT but this will not substitute reading for argument reasoning. sometimes getting to focused on question type strategies makes us lazier when reading the stimulus really try to read to UNDERSTAND the argument in its most basic form do the work upfront kind of like with RC. LSAT loophole does a good job of teaching test takers how to understand the stimulus.

Q9. Answer choices explanations

A. o This answer choice is incorrect. In the Authors defense of Currie we are not told that she had specific obstacles with the scientific community. The scientific community’s physicists and chemists had a different opinion on atoms, but this does not describe a personal obstacle when dealing with the scientific community.

o We know very little about her dealings with the scientific community.

o One misinterpretation of this AC would be to think that scientific community describes the issues found with the elements as mentioned in paragraph 2. Scientific community is really talking about people in the science community and not the elements in nature.

B. o Critics cannot fail to appreciate something that just is not true. The development of quantum mechanics as a field of study does not derive from Curie’s conjecture. We would be making an assumption if we came to this conclusion. We don’t know how it came about. We know according to the Authors viewpoint that she paved the way for later breakthroughs. To translate that into the development of quantum mechanics would be a major error/assumption.

C. o To believe that recall means that they are not aware is another assumption. The author says in Line 36 we must recall that these issues were taking place. This could be something that the critics knew about but did not spend much time considering. This is something we just don’t know.

D. o line 24 says that the critics faulted her for not coming to the right conclusions. The author spends most of his viewpoints explaining how Curie’s context led her to those conclusions. Nature and understanding of the atom all played a role in her conclusions. The critics may be acting as if she came to her conclusions independent of her historical context. They are failing to put themselves in her shoes and in her time. They most likely would not have faulted her if they to into account the historical context.

E. o Although these two elements played a role in her faulty conclusions, we couldn’t conclude that this AC would be something the author would agree with. We can only base our conclusions on what the passage suggests. The passage doesn’t suggests a lack of understanding Curie’s reasoning when dealing with these two elements. It suggests that they did not place much focus on the historical timeframe in which she studied these elements.

Think of it as enhancing the quality of your study has you dissect RC questions down to their lowest common denominator. getting familiar with the passage and also its questions will build mental patterns for you and will help you naturally pick up on details that you know you will be asked about in the questions. Different questions have different strategies. As previously stated check your analytics to see if there are specific question types that you seem to miss more frequently than others.

more competitive or not try not to obsess about it just study consistently and apply when your application is the strongest thats all you can do. dont worry to much.

will send a message!

would definitely be interested!

Stimulus explained: This is not a very difficult stimulus to understand. The government has set out to meet a goal of adequate domestic production. The means used to reach this goal, instead, creates a result opposite of what the government original goal was. It decreased the yields from the point that they currently were.

We are looking for a goal that is not met because of the means used to reach that goal and AC C meets this threshold.

A. Certain governments subsidize theaters in order to attract foreign tourists. But tourists rarely choose a destination for the theatrical performances it has to offer.

a. This does not fit the reasoning used in the stimulus because the goal to attract foreign tourists is not reversed because of the movie theatres. Although the movie theatres may not be successful in reaching the goal of attracting tourists it still does not contribute to the decrease of tourists visiting the city.

B. Certain governments restrict imports in order to keep domestic producers in business. But since domestic producers do not have to face the full force of foreign competition, some domestic producers are able to earn inordinately high profits.

a. This does not fit the reasoning found in the stimulus. We know nothing of the success or failuare of the goal. We know domestic business make more this might imply that the goal was successful. Either way this does not match the reasoning of argumentation used in the stimulus.

C. Certain governments build strong armed forces in order to forestall armed conflict. But in order to maintain the sort of discipline and morale that keeps armed forces strong, those forces must be used in actual combat periodically.

a. The goal of forestalling armed conflict is thwarted, and armed conflict is increased because of the means used while trying to forestall armed conflict which was building strong armed forces. Building strong armed forces comes along with an unforeseen issue of maintence. Maintenance requires the very thing this government was trying to avoid. This then is similar to the reasoning within the stimulus.

D. Certain governments reduce taxes on businesses in order to stimulate private investment. But any investment is to some extent a gamble, and a new business ventures are not always as successful as their owners hoped.

a. Stimulating private investment and the success of this private investment is not the same thing. This answer choice reasoning is not similar to the stimulus.

E. Certain governments pass traffic laws in order to make travel safer. But the population-driven growth in volumes of traffic often has the effect of making travel less safe despite the passage of new traffic laws.

a. This was my original answer choice. I misunderstood what this AC was truly saying.

b. After dissecting it I noticed that “population-driven” was not what I thought it was originally. I assumed that population driven growth had something to do with the newly pass traffic laws but they are not connected in the same fashion that I believed. The newly passed laws does not cause the population driven growth they stem from different causes but when clashed together the newly passed laws are overcome by this population driven growth in the volumes of traffic.

i. So the goal fails but not because of the means used to achieve the goal.

This is a very late response but may be helpful to others who come to this discussion thread....

A. The book reviewer enjoys virtually any novel written by a novelist whom she trusts.

a. This was my original answer choice. I chose this to be correct because I had an improper understanding of the LAWGIC in the stimulus.

i. The first sentence says “When I read a novel set in a city I know well…”. This portion of the sentence sets the criteria of the type of books the book reviewer will be discussing. We know nothing else of OTHER types of novels the author reads given the limited information we are given.

B. If the book reviewer entrusts the novelist as a storyteller, the novel in question must be set in a city the book reviewer knows well.

a. This answer choice would be correct if the stimulus said something along the lines of “If the book is not based in a city that I know well then I will not entrusts the novelist” this is a contrapositive of this AC. We don’t know if the book reviewer entrusts novelist who write books ONLY base in cities that he know well.

i. For example it could be the case that the author entrusts novelist who write books about scientific topics that the reviewer knows very well. We just don’t know and we need to be cautious before subscribing to ACs that are to ambitious.

C. Peter Lee’s first novel was set in San Francisco.

a. This inference doesn’t follow from the stimulus. It could have been based in another city known well by the reviewer like Dallas or NYC once again we just don’t know.

D. The book reviewer does not trust any novel set in a city that she does not know well.

a. This is very attractive answer choice and may seem logical but it is severely flawed.

i. Base on the stimulus this is what we know about the reviewer.

1. We know what happens when a book is read based in a city that is known well by the reviewer

2. We know what happens when the reviewer takes a writer seriously.

3. We know what happens when required knowledge is demonstrated

4. We Know what happens when the reviewer trusts the novelist

ii. We know nothing about books based in cities that the reviewer does not know well.

E. The book reviewer does not believe that she knows San Francisco better than Peter Lee.

a. We know this by a key statement made in the first sentence. “I must see that the writer knows the city ATLEAST as well as I do…” This is critical to understand along with the last part of the stimulus where we learn that the reviewer tests were passed by Lee. If Peter knows MORE than the reviewer than that’s ok. But HE MUST KNOW ATLEAST! And because he must know at least we know as fact that she cannot know MORE.

For someone first starting out my advice would be to take your time and move slowly through the curriculum! Theres no rush and no point in blitzing through any of the MSS material. Just like you I struggled alot with MSS question types.

Here are a few things that really helped me out.

After reading the stimulus take your time to ponder on how the statements work with each other. The correct answer choice can be supported by one statement alone or a combination of all of the statements together. So if you end up partially understanding the stimulus you can get tripped up by answer choices. When approaching answer choices it was very beneficial for me to eliminate the wrong answer choices first. This process helps me solidify my understanding of the stimulus and gives me more confidence to choose the right answer when I do come in contact with it. When you get down to 2 answer choices often times it will be decided on the subtlety of the answer choice. Watch out for words like ALL NEVER MOST ALWAYS ETC (similar to what chardiggity said). These words alter the whole meaning of an answer choice.

Lastly I would write out explanations for why answer choices are correct and why they are incorrect BEFORE watching JYs videos. This while help you to grapple with the stimulus and help fixate your brain on what your task is when you come in contact with MSS question types.