@pdunlavey807 The GMAT appears to be a more suitable replacement than the GRE..

Assuming they want to differentiate the high scorers, I don't think the GMAT would work. For example, I scored 90+ percentile on the GMAT but scored high 150s on the LSAT. I wouldn't mind a law school accepting my GMAT score in lieu of the LSAT, but that probably wouldn't go over too well with the 170+ crowd.

Still, the comparison is interesting because the GMAT's Critical Reasoning questions are very similar to the LSAT's LR questions, albeit easier.

Answer B focuses on the incorrect group of children. The stimulus focuses only on the children who successfully completed the chess program, while B focuses on those that started but not completed the program.

Nope, nope, nope. Abort. Skipping this one...

The key to D is remembering "Not All A's are B's" is the same as "A ←s→ /B.

POE works too...

Um yeah. I get the feeling that LSAT writers like to inflict pain on people.

Does the phrase “one’s sense of approval of one’s character and projects” mean their approval of themselves?

As I read it, yes. I read "one's character" as "one's own character."

How often are these circular reasoning questions now? I've done a couple of the 70's now and don't recall seeing one besides this.

Stimulus: Your art can offer someone 10 aesthetic fulfillment points. But people don't need your aesthetic fulfillment points because they can max out on the world's best art (over in France). Just give it up!

E) Your art would be worth 10 aesthetic fulfillment points, but because the Mona Lisa exists, its only worth 5 points. Sorry!

"some people in the general population are dumb."

I certainly felt dumb reading this RC passage. If it had been earlier in the set, it would have brought my RC score down more.

I skipped it and I'm glad I did.

I got this wrong, but isn't too bad if you can simplify the stimulus.

Stimulus: If published, its through an agent, requested, or by a renown author.

E. If published, but not through an agent or by request, is by a renown author.

I chose D during the test and B during BR. In the stimulus it says that the poetry transmits the values through non-explicit means, but it is not explicitly said in D that heroic figures/role models embody those values. During the BR, I just couldn't find an error in B. I'm not sure why I eliminated it the first time.

I think this issue can be overcome through careful reading.

I think the key here is finding the flaw before checking the answers. I got this wrong timed, but BR'd correctly pretty easily once I understood the stimulus better.

B attacked the biggest weakness (suff/nec flaw) in the argument, but E gave me second thoughts. Mainly because E attacks the assumption in the argument that there is water on Europa, when the data only strongly suggests it is so.

For answer A, the second part just doesn't directly address the stimulus' argument.

"Special obligation" does seem wrong at first look, but I'm not sure it made sense to dismiss D immediately when C has "intended purpose" which is not supported in the stimulus either.

"Most people don’t eat peaches, but kids eat a TON of peaches."

As mentioned in the stimulus, kids are a subset of the people who eat much more than the national average. Answer D specifically addresses kids but not the rest of the "others" in line 5. I think this is a better reason to eliminate D and choose C which does address this larger group.

Thanks for replying. Your explanation helped me look at just David's argument and not make assumptions about what he was trying to say.

“It is not explicitly stated nor common sense that taking time off from teaching will allow someone to improve in teaching,”

I think I meant: “It is not explicitly stated nor common sense that taking a leave of absence to do research has any more benefit than doing both research and teaching concurrently.”

This is where I went wrong.

I incorrectly make assumption about what D was saying. I read D's statement incorrectly as, "why should our limited resources be devoted to supporting professors taking time off from teaching, when they can do research and teach at the same time?" In essence, why can't the professors teach, do research, and get the benefits of research at the same time? In this case, his argument would not be ignoring C's points, and instead pointing to the flaw in her argument.

I made a relatively straightforward question into a harder one. Thanks for the help!

This one really frustrates me. The first sentence says professors should be given paid leaves of absence for research purposes, but at no time does it say that leave of absences are necessary for research. Why can't research be done without taking leaves of absence from teaching?

This is why the flaw in David's question doesn't seem like a flaw to me. David is essentially, but not explicitly, asking why professors need leaves of absence to do research when they can do research and teach at the same time.

It is entirely plausible to me that he can acknowledge both of research's two benefits (human knowledge, teaching), but still ask why the teachers need absences to do so. You can improve teaching while teaching! It is not explicitly stated nor common sense that taking time off from teaching will allow someone to improve in teaching.

I'd appreciate if someone could talk me off the ledge before I fall into the LSAT cavern of doom. Thanks :)

The argument gap here is between vitamin C's correlation with "lower heart disease" and the conclusion's "healthier than average" claim. It doesn't consider that someone may have lower risk of heart disease but still be less healthy than average.

Answer D exploits this gap with infectious disease. Vitamin C reduces heart disease, but increases likelihood of infectious disease. This would likely not make a person healthier than average. Argument weakened.

On being old:

Going into school with an assumption that 23 year olds are immature just reinforces the mentality that a divide exists in the first place. I'm 33 and plan to associate with other friendly people, whether 22 or 90 years old. I've worked a lot with younger people professionally, and aside from the occasional but innocent "you're old" joke, its actually quite fun to be around.

On my post undergrad period:

I will include my 10+ years on my resume, and my PS story will originate from those years. I see those years as nothing but a positive on my application.

On aspiring to be a lawyer:

Being a lawyer certainly wasn't an aspiration until a couple years ago and I don't make any apologies about it. My change of direction will be alluded to in my PS. But like David said, I will try to show it instead of saying it explicitly.

Good luck everyone!

"Answer B is immediately irrelevant...which is...if you read it correctly."

Sigh....

I lost my mind in this stimulus. What I should have done is focus on Glen's last sentence, because it is clear that is the conclusion. Sara refers directly to it by saying "but such a role" and disputes it. They disagree about "Law's primary role should be to create virtuous citizens." E is clearly the answer if you see it this way.

B: Prediction of business success isn't really relevant to the relationship between overconfidence and starting a business.

E: Business acumen? Again, that is not really relevant to the relationship between overconfidence and starting a business.

D Took me 2 minutes, but this is really the only option here. It provides evidence that the conclusion is correct.

“help residents of rural areas gain access to electricity.”

This can be assumed to mean:

“help SOME (1-100) residents of rural areas gain access to electricity.”

It cannot be assumed to mean:

“help ALL residents of rural areas gain access to electricity.”

So you can't logically conclude the subsidy has failed, since according to the sentence above, it only needed to provide electricity to at least one more rural resident.