I struggled to understand this one too, but now I GET IT (thanks to AI lol)

We are trying to prove that magnets reduce pain in humans, so that we can infer that they will also reduce pain in dogs.

The Premises offered are not strong enough to get to the conclusion that the Magno-Blanket is probably able to relieve arthritic pain in older dogs.

Lets say E is true, that the patients who received a placebo rather than the treatment (magnets) did not report reduced pain. WELL this further proves that the treatment (magnets) actually works and therefore further proves that dogs using magnets will probably relive their pain.

#feedback I have the same feedback as another user. Can you please make the paragraph accessible to read without any analysis before jumping in? Thank you!

I'm bored

Im bored

genuinely what tf was that

Wrong at first, I picked E but then I got it right on BR because I took the time and wrote it down. Once I wrote it down it clicked.

When I read B, I knew it made sense but then I was like let me not make an assumption on what the activist is saying so thats why I went for D. But, I see that D is backwards. UGH

@ginelson This is super duper helpful, Thank you! I think you may have accidentally switched the Premise & Conclusion because:

One should never sacrifice one's health in order to acquire money (C), for without health, happiness is not obtainable. (P)

So Money is in the C but not P

Happiness is in P but not C

Health is in both P & C

So bridge Money to Happiness & you get answer choice A.

This is super helpful! I will be using this. Thank you for sharing!

It def took me lots of re-reading but I picked C.

C.) Someone is owed a sincere apology for having been lied to by a person if someone else has already received a sincere apology for the same lie from that same person.

How I always read these statements is by starting with IF

so... if someone else has already recieved apology, same lie, same person -> then owed sincere apology for having been lied to.

This matched up to what the counselor was saying. LSAT really tries to trick you with their weird ahhh sentences.

Bro I was in between D & E lol picked D then picked E blind review UGHHHHH

@Amelia_D Thank you for this

@SavanahHoffstein Yes! Thank you so much for explaining it! :)

@SavanahHoffstein Hi! It's PT131.S2.Q2

so I got this right, but that was in no way a level 1 question

what in the actual f is this question.... I was so confident in C and was like there's no way it's E

No bc I started zoning out here :) like...

@Jacq SAME like literally

my dumb ahhh wrote it right as:

well designed -> comfortable -> spacious

and still picked the wrong answer lol... now I see it obvi bro

okay so for starters I read "most" as "many" and went with some SMH bro LOL

4/5 but can anyone explain question 3 for me: I did have A & D left after I used POE BUT doesn't it explicitly say :

Price: A corporation's primary responsibility is to its shareholders.

Albrecht: For employees, however, the well-being of the corporation for which they have chosen to work represents their very livelihood. The corporation's primary responsibility should be to them.

The video explanation brushed of A like theres no way that could work lol... but I want more details. Like yes I understand why it can be D hence, why D and A were both my last answer choices left but the text legit says Price thinks shareholders and Albrecht thinks employees.

Okay so I didn't know I could do that. lol... but how do you actually work though the question? I just see "show question" next to comments on the top of the page.

Honestly reading that hurt my brain and led me to picking the wrong answer. lol

4/5 because question on 3 I was legit between C and E smh lol, anyone else?

Just got here too & taking August LSAT :)

@yesterdayseeker LOL maybe respond back to it and ask it to not make it a pattern like that? but either way it helped me see the different between causal and not-causal language.