nono it's fine, I got what you were trying to say:)

One more question, as to the game you created, my first reaction is to get rid of B, because B hates two others; In fact, I always tend to get rid of the one that contradicts the most number of others. Could that be a rule of thumb?

Thanks that definitely helps!

I hate it when I understand what exactly the underlying reasoning but just can't absorb complicated descriptions like A in ten seconds.

I thought the main reason for eliminating A is that popcorn is just one type of those cinema snacks.

JY Please correct my reasoning: I though the argument was indeed distorted; A's argument is If A then B, but the subscriber is interpreting it to be "A is capable to be established and B is probably gonna happen". Also, how come the argument is inadequate? It is a "IF A THEN B" argument, it doesn't depend on the gov can be trusted at all, in the end, what does trustworthiness of gov have to do with fundamental changes? Changes can brought through external forces. The counter argument just doesn't do anything but distorting the original argument.

on a second thought, maybe I shouldn't interpret the original argument as If A then B; conditional logic is indeed a double edged sword.

Just played 3 hours diablo3, feeling guilty as hell. I've taken almost 40 preptests and averaged 173ish. Totally understand you. Lately my score dropped to about 168 because total burnout. Recreational reading seems to work for me; I'm reading Brave New World and it's stimulatingly fun.

This one could serve well as a econ 101 midterm question.

I understand why E is the right choice, but how am I supposed to know that "harm" and "contract" are different concepts in this case (or the lobsters are harmed by the disease after they contract it). I will be crying if I have something like this on my test day.

the wording of 11>B is annoyingly misleading, Historical Circumstances SURROUNDING the creation of a work?! It seems to be referring to the socio-political background of the time when a work is created, rather than the historical significance of the workI just crossed out this choice instantly.

Still confused about E; in the end are you saying the fact that "seal+sterilize is a sub-category of acceptable methods" doesn't mean it actually is acceptable method? Are you supposed to rely on the second sentence, which says "bacteria" instead of "desease causing bacteria"?

hi JY, please help me with this one, the second setence really bugs me somehow, what does it really mean by "can be best explained if"? does it suggest the radius actually is 49 km?

This one really frustrated me~How does C imply for most consumers assembly without instruction cannot be easier? I get it, most of them are smart-ass, assembling the product is a piece of cake, but it doesn't mean there's no instruction that can make it even easier.

I get why C is correct, but its weakening is really weak too...even if some other countries export the U.S. banned pesticides, the U.S. joining this force (increasing the pervasiveness of these pesticides) will still increase the chance of harming American citizens right?

a little bit confused: I get it that A makes sense, but it seems to be a premise supporting the conclusion: they have to be able to produce indefinitely the stuff to thrive indefinitely; However, the question is asking which one does the conclusion support, which is the other way around. Yeah~in the end you can say if the conclusion is valid, it "proves" that the premise, as a sufficient condition, exists, but it doesn't seem like "support" to me. May be it is the way this kind of question is?

I've always wanted to get above 170 because I don't have a stellar GPA. I've taken 40 prep tests over the past three months and averaged roughly 171. With tremendous help from 7sage, I've seen significant improvement in my LR and LG. My goal on the test day is to minimize mistakes in those sections, and try my best on RC. I've always seen the LSAT as a test of mentality. I'm not a confident person innately, but JY you've helped me gain enough confidence for stepping into the test room with a smile. Thank you again.

I tried to avoid "overthinking" when doing this one. The "but clearly" in the second sentence made it clear that the author of the stimulus is going to form some sort of counterargument, and E fits it perfectly and is logically valid. In other words, I treated this question as a "complete the argument" question, rather than the typical must be true question; I'm not sure it's a safe approach thoughany thoughts?

I interpreted the last sentence to be "In an accident, one's likelihood to be injured is smaller if one drives large car rather than a small car", and therefore I just couldn't tell the flaw at all.