Question 14 provides us significant insight into how LSAC distinguishes the idea of "enforcement" from the idea of "being in force/operative".

Passage B discusses the impact of social norms on creative output: The main thesis is that social norms function in a manner quite similar to IP laws. These norms are "operative", meaning that they are in force-- they work!

Now, how is discussing that social norms are in force different from discussing whether they are enforced?

It comes down to knowing the nitty gritty of the definition of enforcement upheld by LSAC. Enforcement is the act of compelling people to obey certain laws, norms. It is the process of ensuring compliance with social norms. Passage A discusses sanctions that compel comedians to not steal jokes. Passage B, however, does not discuss the compulsion of these norms. It simply states that these norms are effective.

I was deeply confused by such a distinction, as I had assumed that if something is in force, that must imply that it has been enforced.

But that is not necessarily true. Social norms and laws can be conceivably in force without compelling people to obey them. Perhaps these chefs are good natured folks who don't need sanctions. They may voluntarily abide by them without being subject to sanctions.

In summary, "laws/norms being enforced" and "laws/norms being in force" are not necessarily the same thing.

@ said:

I was gonna ask the same question. Problem is when reading both passage A and B then going to the questions, I feel like its way more difficult to remember who said what and the exact details. I was thinking since we are saving 2min off of bubbling that we will have the time to quickly check the questions.

I may decide to do this too. Although the idea of clicking past all the questions to scan for [Passage A questions] seems time consuming, this may be a better strategy than potentially being confused by AB viewpoints.

If I implement this strategy, I must remember to pay attention to the bubble section at the bottom and remember to go back to the first question of the passage after doing all [Passage A questions]. The bubble section at the bottom kindly divides the questions into passage chunks, separated by straight bar lines, so I can know which question belongs to which passage.

@

Yeah. Not being able to do "if" questions first for LG is frustrating too.

The two-page paper format was amenable to these strategies but not anymore.

I also realized that for LR, I no longer have the means to double circle questions. Only flagging is allowed, and this doesn't allow me to differentiate between double circles and single circles.

Sometimes I like to have a third round for harder questions, and now there isnt a way to double circle them. So on scratch paper, I had to write down what questions to return to for the third time. I also like to put slashes next to questions for which I have 60~70% certaintly that I wish to return to last if there is time remaining. I cant do this either.

Directly proportional = same rate

Increase in life span =/= increase in population

CONGRATULATIONS, LUCAS!!!!!!

You are an inspiration.

Sami, you are amazing!!

.

I think another reason B is wrong is that even if it said "some obeyed the new speed limit", the author doesn't assume this necessarily.

There are numerous ways in which a new speed limit reduction can reduce fatalities. Let's say the new speed limit is 50 km/hr and no one obeys it. But instead of driving at 70 km/hr, the drivers now drive at 60km/hr because they sorta want to not get caught or feel the psychological pressure to reduce their limit a bit due to the new speed limit. Even without obeying the new limit, there may be a reduction in driving speed in general which could account for the reduction in fatalities.

About C,

The conflation between fatalities # and accident # is a good reason to eliminate it because the author doesn't claim that speed limit reduction caused a decline in # of accidents. She says that speed limit reduction decreased #of fatalities.

Congratulations!!!

#18

It says in line 54 that Walker won over this audience by refining the cakewalk.

Refining (removing impurities, making minor improvements to the original) AND distilling(extracting the essence) something imply that you are working with the diamond in the rough.

The diamond itself has already been there.

Initially, I thought 'refining' primarily means CHANGING something. If Walker modified cakewalk by refining it, how can we say that she was highlighting elements that were ALREADY in the dance? It seemed to me that Walker added something new to the dance.

But, I guess "refining" something means you are primarily working with the stuff already there, just making minor modifications... :)

That "although" threw me off. It's important to realize that the conclusion makes two claims, and we need to justify both of these.

we need:

1) not wrong to not tell them Sarah's number

2) laudable, if they tell them Sarah's number

C), at best, justifies #2.

I guess it is logical to say that to overcome a crisis implies alleviating that crisis. Didnt totally like that jump but it is commonsensical.

JY's explanation about E is super interesting. I've always thought of Necessary Conditions as helpful for meeting the Sufficient Conditon.

Isnt meeting a requirement of something a stepping stone for achieving it? But I guess the word "help" is a tricky concept....

I'm confused because in some Strengthen/Weaken questions, the correct Answer targets the feasibility of an explanation. Is it possible or not?

If it isnt possible, then that explanation is weakened.

If it is possible, that explanation is strengthened.

For anyone giving an explanation for phenomenon, their necessary assumption is that their explanation is feasible.

An answer choice that confirms this assumption Strengthens the argument.

If this is the case, why cant a necessary condition for something be considered helpful for that thing? (I'm assuming that Strengthen and Help are synonymous here)

Super helpful!!!

A very critical concept that is repeated in LR.

Knowing this cookie cutter argument form by heart will save your time, conserve your brain energy, and thus boost your LR score.

Thank you so much for posting this!

Look forward to reading about other cookie cutter argument forms!

Losing the grasp of the exact conditional (sufficient and necessary) is the main cause of getting lost.

Always, always reiterate the conditional statement accurately.

E would have been correct if the conditional sentence had dictated, "For a language method to successfully teach how to read alphabetic languages, it must succeed in teaching them phonemic awareness and how sounds are symbolic representation of letters. Many students taught by the whole language method can read."

But the original stimulus doesnt contain such a conditional. It says, "To read ABC languages, you must have condition X and condition Y."

"Assured/guaranteed only" is a tricky phrase.

At first, I thought it was a biconditional indicator, like "if and only if", but upon much thought, I've come to the conclusion that "assured only" is NOT the same thing as "if and only if".

Logic illustration:

You can eat this watermelon if and only you pay five dollars.

--> if you don't pay five dollars, you can't eat this watermelon.

-->if you pay five dollars, you can eat this watermelon.

You are assured/guaranteed to eat this watermelon only if you pay five dollars.

---> if you don't pay five dollars, you aren't assured/guaranteed to eat this watermelon (NOTE: this doesn't mean the same thing as "you can't eat watermelon". It just means that the certainty of eating the watermelon is gone).

---> if you pay five dollars, ?? (necessary satisfied, rule falls apart)

Wow. This is gold! Thank you so much for your amazing advice.

I can’t believe PT84 has a curve of -10.

“Increase” “decrease” “overall” distinction pattern is so predominant in this section.

Beware of the comparatives in modern lsats!

EVEN after realizing that Henry’s conclusion concerns URBAN pollution, I still didn’t like (A) because “significant distance” is too vague. Even if powerplants are significantly far away from urban areas, if there’s too much pollution, it may travel to urban areas and increase the urban pollution.???

SIGNIFICANT??? It’s vague!!! (But then again, it’s a weaken question. “A little” potential for weaken is still a weaken...) My standards for “weaken” were pretty high with this question. Need to dial that down to a minimum level of expectation.

The true winner of this question is someone who is able to eliminate B).

For more than 20 years, the modern lsat has trained diligent students to love answer choices that sound like B). BUT, little did I understand the meaning of “offset”.

Offset means “counteract by having an EQUAL opposite effect” (Oxford ENG). This would mean that B) is actually saying that total polllution increase is NEUTRAL. But neutral isn’t good enough because HENRY argues that pollution will BE REDUCED...........

SAVE ME LSAT, save me from this logical distress!!

“Exceptional” means unusual.

Nothing in the stimulus excludes the possibility that surrounding islands’ waters are also exceptionally still.

If the surrounding islands’ waters are also exceptionally still, the whole argument falls apart. The conclusion doesn’t follow at all.

That’s why I thought D) strengthens it more than C). If Shooter’s Island’s waters and surrounding island waters are all exceptionally still, the conclusion, which depends on the assumption that Shooter’s Islands’ still waters is the differentiating REASON for the higher number of juvenile waterbirds, does not make sense.

Thinking too much has led to this agonizing analysis.

Put simply, this argument makes the common error of introducing a foreign element in the conclusion. “Nursery” is nowhere found in the premises. The fact that the conclusion brings up a foreign element should have signaled a huge red flag to me, but the obviousness of C) and the attractiveness of D) made me totally gloss over this point. If this were a diagnostic test, I would have chosen C) easily and wouldn’t have been able to analyze D)’s implications so deeply.

For me, the biggest advantage of paper RC is that it doesnt have to move (no scrolling!). The passage stays in one position the whole time, and that stability helps me retain my structural memory of the passage. The aerial view is available on the LSAC digital website, but it's inconvenient and destabilizing to switch between (passage only) and (passage and questions) mode under the 35 min time pressure.

LR and LG are much more adjustable digitally because they are "stable".

LR passage is short enough that no scrolling is needed.

LG setup on scratch paper doesnt move around either.

RC is a whole other story...

After you finish all four sections, you have the option of blind reviewing the whole test.

You need to click on "I have completed Blind Review" before proceeding to checking your score.

I'm on the same boat. I usually miss 3 questions on paper RC but my digital RC performance is a nightmare.

I struggle with MP questions much more because it's impossible to see the whole passage at once without scrolling down.

Digitally, it's much more difficult do a structural reading. On paper, I had no problem taking a mental snapshot of each paragraph's role and locating author's views scattered across the passage before going into the questions. Now the problem of scrolling is getting in the way.

I tried to do low res summaries on scratch paper but it's just too time consuming, compared to the freedom of marking author's tone right on the margins. Not only is writing on the scratch paper time consuming, it is distracting to look at both the passage on the screen and the scratch paper notes for answering questions. There is too much to focus on and the eyes wander.

I'm sorry I cant give you any advice as I am also seeking advice.

Doing this whole section digital was a bloody affair.