To the people wondering about C: This is just my opinion but I think C does strengthen the argument a bit by affirming the correlation (and the argument is does assume the parents are feeling no emotion when alone, this is not explicitly stated). But it doesn't prove the conclusion definitively because it doesn't rule out other possibilities such as sound affecting emotion, both being affected by a common cause, etc. D, on the other hand, provides a causal mechanism showing how emotion can have a direct effect on the sound, which gives stronger support for the causal mechanism hypothesized by the conclusion (emotion affects sound). So even though C strengthens the argument, D strengthens it "the most."

Would A have been right if it said "only if" instead of "if"?

Mmmm I think it's a bit of a stretch to say "benefited from" luck is equivalent to "requires" luck. These are pretty different concepts. Interesting question structure-wise though.

I skipped this one during my PT and I have no regrets.

I only came to (kind of) understand what the stimulus was saying after reading the answer choices lolol.

I think I'm just gonna skip any NA questions I see after question 15 in a section for the time being. I really can't do these hard ones.

Revenge of the sequencing game

I feel like I got half way there, the whole time I was doing the question I kept asking myself "how do we know that Logichut is trying to grow rapidly??"

I feel like B and C do strengthen slightly but yeah the question is which "most strengthens," which is clearly D.

I thought E was right cuz I thought if Mikkeli could understand it he could partially understand what the book was saying, despite not being able to understand Norwegian.

I got a bit stumped cuz I felt C and E were both necessary.

Disagree that answer E is an assumption being made in the argument. At no point did Trent or Selena mention there being only one asteroid, both of them only say "asteroid impact." Trent (and Selena) could be talking about two large asteroids that more or less hit in the same spot and created the same amount of dust and the argument would still stand. Seems more like an assumption the reader is making when reading the stimulus rather than an assumption the actual argument is making.

I would say the necessary assumption is something more like "one or more asteroids could not have hit other areas and created additional dust which killed the dinosaurs." The assumption lies in the fact that he assumes asteroid activity could not have caused the extinction at all simply because it couldn't have been caused by that specific impact/crater. But it's not the number of asteroids that is the issue.

Crap question, poorly worded.

I feel like B would easily be the right answer in another question. I would say it weakens slightly, though perhaps not as seriously as E (which makes it wrong of course).

This is a principle question disguised as an RRE question.

I didn't choose B because I didn't see what medical staffs' memory of patients' predictions of sudden changes had to do with anything. And I still don't really see what the author of the stimulus is trying to say with this. Are the patients' predictions supposed to be analogous to the reports of the babies or the medical staff's biased reports of the busy nights? And if it's the former, what do the maternity room staff's memories have to do with anything? I got this wrong because I am not able to connect the parts of the argument together at all.

I got this wrong because I couldn't really define what all these things that were "spinning" off modern culture were. Were they subcultures, social problems, movements, what. I think the stimulus makes that very unclear. There is no clear statement that defines these things as "subcultures."

I don't understand fully what the argument is that we are trying to strengthen. Is the author trying to make some kind of argument about how these modifications are deformities/mutilations? To me these paragraphs seemed like more of a description rather than an argument. Like generally explaining ways films can be changed (though obviously with negative connotation) so that the viewer's experience is different.

Hmmm I can see how Answer A is better but not really buying that Answer C is not implied. Just because the ideal conditions can occur in some instances doesn't mean that mutilations of films, in a general sense, are not inevitable. To say this is not implied means you think the author believes there is a possible world where NO films are mutilated in ANY way, either through solving the problem or otherwise. But the author doesn't ever suggest this; instead he/she recommends that the film critics incorporate the reality of mutilations into their analyses, which essentially concedes the inevitability of it.

I think it may come down to different interpretations of the sentence; to accept C as wrong you must take it to mean that the mutilation of ALL films is inevitable (which indeed it is not), but my interpretation of it was as talking about mutilation of films as a general phenomenon that occurs in the world, which the passage definitely implies as inevitable (otherwise there'd be no reason for critics to incorporate it into their analyses).

Answer C is the reverse of what I expected the reconciliation to be (the crayfish prey on other species that prey on the dragonflies more than the crayfish do). They definitely know this and are trying to be tricky.

WOW talk about subtle. I would say that weakens slightly at best lol. Never would've caught that in real time.

Is it still a necessary assumption if its necessary for only one part of the argument? Answer A is necessary for the claim that they can communicate concerns to other crows but not for them being capable of recognizing threatening people. I was looking for an answer that addresses both points.

I feel like the more glaring necessary assumption is "shrieking and dive-bombing is an indicator that crows perceive something as threatening."

WAY over my head. i understand the main argument but still have zero clue how answer A parallels the argument.

Makes sense, I knew there was some kind of causal problem with the family health thing but I couldn't figure out what it was ;P

lol I definitely did not see how moving animals could explain the need burn large swaths of land. I was definitely imagining a couple guys with a torch moving the animals, not lighting the whole landscape ablaze.

I was confused about this because I wasn't sure if I was supposed to interpret SUV's as something that "was developed" to protect people from harm. The way the argument is it seems like it just is. I find it hard sometimes to know how much to nit pick things on the LSAT, sometimes I am rewarded and sometimes I am reading into it too far.

I solved this mostly by approaching it as an SA question more than a strengthen. The format of the question tipped me off to it (even though it says "most strongly supported" instead of "valid") and that worked in my favor.