The way I immediately Clocked that Pat was not a member but then completely missed option D

That isn't a feature on the real LSAT, so offering it would create a reliance on a tool that you wouldn't have for test day.

It's for the best that they don't add this feature.

That's a matter of failing to translate the contrapositive.

X and Y → Approved

translates to:

Approved → x or y

It does NOT translate to

Approved → x and y

In words:

If x and y are true, it is not approved. This means that if it is approved, either (or both, but not neither) x or y are not true.

This does NOT mean that if it is approved, both X and Y are not true

if condition X and Y ARE true→ Not approved

Approved→ X or Y are NOT true

Since Approved and X is true, Y must be NOT true.

Translating to words:

If (both) the program duplicates and attracts less than 50 people, then program is not approved.

The proposed program duplicates. However, it was approved.

Thus, it must NOT be the case that the program attracts less than 50 people.

You are unintentionally looking at it as though x and y are the conditions that need to be met, but they are the opposite. So in truth, the word “however” refers to the department being funded despite one of the criteria being missing Present

You don't have to know that at all. The point of the stimulus saying "infancy" is to show that it is happening early in life. Answer choice E is providing support that exposure early in life is more effective than later in life (by one year).

Also, regardless of it being a good or bad question it is a real question that appeared on the LSAT.

Everyone seems to be having problems with the classically trained example, and I was until I began to type it out. Hopefully this can help someone else.

If MOST people who are not classically trained cannot recite the lyrics, that means less than half of the people who are not classically trained can. How is it not, therefore, more likely for her to be classically trained (or at least not part of the "not classically trained" group)? Because you cannot conflate the fact that it being unlikely for someone to be in a group for it to mean they are likely to be in a different group.

Putting numbers on it if 60% of the people not classically trained cannot recite, there are still 40% of them who can. Just because 90% of classically trained people can recite, does not mean she falls into that category.

To me, a more clear example of the flaw in the logic is:

Most vegetarians like brussels sprouts and most meat eaters do not. Would it be fair to say that Anna, who enjoys brussels sprouts, is likely to be vegetarian? No. Her enjoyment of brussels sprouts does not determine her preference for eating meat. Without further information, it is just as likely that she is a meat eater that likes brussels sprouts.

They would have been applicable for logic games, but it seems to be more for the logical reasoning section. Using what they call "Lawgic" (diagraming the parts of an argument) you can solve the harder logical reasoning questions.

Correct. it means "specific" example vs "abstract" form.

Like an equation 5=2x +1 vs Y=mx+b

Sure. When parsing between subject and predicate, it's important to consider what the main action is; similar to an argument which can have subconclusions, a sentence can have "sub-actions" so to speak.

Take the following sentence

"The singing woman ran through the crowded streets of Paris"

In this example, the main action of the sentence is "ran". While singing is a verb, it is operating as an adjective- or description- of the woman. Also notice that the sentence can function without the verb in the subject, but CANNOT function without the verb in the predicate.

If we remove singing from the sentence we have:

"The woman ran through the crowded streets of Paris"

This is still a complete sentence with a subject and predicate.

Conversely, if we remove "running" from the sentence we have

"The singing woman through the crowded streets of Paris"

This is no longer a complete sentence.

In the subject of the sentence, verbs will generally serve to make clarifying statements about the state of the noun. Here are another few examples, with the verb in the subject bolded.

"The hidden boy jumped out from behind the slide"

"The climbing hiker sighed upon reaching the peak"

"Though Simon is known for playing piano, he is currently reading a book"

Hope this helps :)

The real test does have a highlight function :)

It definitely can be.

For example 2.1, it could be rephrased to say

"It is not a sustainable, long term solution for the restaurants on the main block to store their food waste in their backyard. Although they are temporarily doing so, the unpleasant odors will(could) negatively impact the entire block and food waste stored openly can attract pests and rodents, which will(could) lead to hygiene issues."

The context that the restaurants are temporarily storing food waste now follows the claim and precedes the premises.

Surprised this didn’t mention the most vulnerable part of the claim: that the cat “intentionally” knocked over the bin.

They CAN be anywhere in the argument. If you are asking where they are most LIKELY to be, then yes it will usually be found in the first two or last two sentences depending on passage length.