I flagged this question initially because I wasn't 100% sure about what AC B is saying. I know it's roughly going in the right direction -- some form of bias. But I went ahead and eliminated all the other ACs and moved on.

AC A: "same weight" actually does nothing. It's literally saying no effect. That doesn't do anything.

AC C: (1) pursuing which field of research does not mean data correction (2) "favor theories they accept" might include Jones or exclude Jones. This is just an ambiguous AC

AC D: this hypothetical world about what if errors are not discovered is completely irrelevant. the stimulus is talking about after we discover the error & correcting it.

AC E: (1) this might worsen the paradox. so there are quite a few other theories, so why is it favoring Jones again? (2) bringing up "other factors" out of the blue is very often a trap AC.

But now I understand what JY is saying for AC B. If we only look at data that is against Jones's theory, then the overall proportion of correction towards Jones must be higher. Whereas if we looked at all data, then we gotta look at some correction against Jones, which AC B says might be ignored

As an ESL student, I actually didn't know what ecstasy means. But that's alright. Quick & easy elimination to arrive at B; the other ACs are just so blatantly off.

Q11 is an example of where in order to get 1 question correct, you can either pick the right AC or eliminate the wrong ACs, so that you actually have two tries to get it right!

I see some comments missed the real reason why AC A is wrong.

The stimulus provides the following causal reasoning chain:

practice ---> damage esteem ---> less confident

What AC A is saying is that "damage esteem ---> less confident" is wrong. However, it could be that practice ---> damage esteem is wrong.

The other small giveaway is that the conclusion only says "on average", no effect. What this means is that maybe there is some effect, but it's not significant enough. Perhaps other overriding influences hid that effect. So it's far too strong to say that the causal arg is outright incorrect.

AC A actually represents two common traps within LR.

The first is that words like "some" or "many" doesn't do anything in strengthen/weaken/SA or any other question that requires a "powerful AC". This is because some means 1 in 1 or 1 in 1 million. Having 1 issue out of 100 in common is pointless and does not change the argument.

The second issue is that having some issue in common is not the same as "complex campaign issue". There are straightforward ones like should stealing be legal and complex ones like how should we regulate the stock market?

Under timed conditions, it only took me 1:05 to quickly select B and moved on. I didn't realize this was even a hard Q. Then I looked back and saw why...

If you really understand LSAT language, you will know sometimes the test includes concessional language. This might include "despite" and "it is given (known) that... however...", which are far more prevalent in RC than LR. An alternative way to look at this is "it is given (universally known)" should be equivalent to a general principle that everyone is already familiar with, so how can that be a conclusion? I'm skeptical, but I just moved on.

Then I saw the second sentence says it enables the necessary condition to be satisfied. Maybe if we enable the necessary and concludes sufficient, that might be a flawed conclusion.

But satisfying the necessary condition somehow supports the existence of the entire conditional statement? That's gotta be the worst argument ever. Then I was like, nah, the first sentence is definitely not the conclusion.

This was a really good question to test your LSAT strategies!! If you got this question wrong for any reason, it's really good to review it thoroughly.

P: lost ---> not Jenn

C: Jenn ---> win

Initially, my rephrase was about the contrapositive of lost is not win, it could be a tie. But LSAT went for a less common flaw -- you cannot predict the future. This is often an automatic trap AC, but the test writer decided to throw it in as the correct AC (thus argument flaw) instead.

AC A: this is merely describing a negation, which wouldn't have been a flaw anyways. however, the premise & conclusion isn't describing a negation. reversal of lost does NOT win. it's a tie.

AC B: "presumes... can be reliably... analyzed by a computer". If you fell for this AC, then you didn't realize what is the actual conclusion. The stimulus explicitly stated that computers are not required, and merely acts as another source to help to confirm the information. Thus, this AC about computers is irrelevant.

AC C: there is nothing in the stimulus to suggest a single case

AC D: correct. the stimulus is inferring from the past ---> future. This is a less common flaw.

AC E: Similar to AC B in that this stimulus is not drawing an argument about computers.

For question 13, it's a typical wording trap on LSAT, where you have to use examples to think about what a word actually means.

What is the mechanism for let's say Darwinism? Well, steps 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.

What is a theory? Usually describing how something works, rather than listing the steps (mechanism). Just "describing a phenomenon" doesn't sound like a typical theory to me.

As someone from an engineering background, I also believe this question might be challenged & removed on a more recent LSAT. This requires a bit much baiting on subtle definition difference on words that people don't typically use.

P: if they receive better diet ---> produce less methane

C: subtle twist is that if they receive better diet ---> less methane from cows overall

Flaws/Loopholes: what if cows produce less methane, but maybe produce less meat/milk so that more cows are required? And then actually increase overall methane? This is a typical cookie-cutter flaw where decrease in one aspect might be outweighed by overall increase

AC A: This AC guards against the aforementioned possibility by saying that better diet doesn't result in less yield.

AC B: Okay? How does this help the argument? The AC seems reasonable.

AC C: I fell for this AC when I did my PT, partially because I was tired... For this AC to work, we need to make two modifications. (1) "if the cost were lower" needs to be removed from the AC or activated in the stimulus. Right now, it's just dormant conditional. (2) The conclusion lives in a hypothetical world, thus, activating the sufficient condition is unnecessary. Suppose the final sentence of the paragraph does not include the if statement, then AC C can strengthen the conclusion by making the activation of the sufficient condition very likely.

AC D: the stimulus does not make a distinction between milk vs meat production

AC E: the stimulus does not make a distinction between carbon dioxide and methane

After reading everyone's explanation of Q18, here are several different nuances about it that should have given it away:

(1) "various interpretations" is incorrect. The passage says that she was able to "address conflicting demand", but that does not mean multiple interpretations. And the passage specifically said "her interpretation", singular, not plural.

(2) Catering to different "cultural groups" is a subtle mismatch. She adapted to various groups, including middle-class AA, middle-class EA, and rich people. So cultural group is off the mark.

The correct AC E was soooo subtle. BUT! It's very easy to eliminate all the other AC

AC A: Comparison of one company to the entire industry is not relevant to the conclusion about this company.

AC B & C: Conclusion is about preventing future design flaws, thus other flaws or malfunctions are irrelevant.

AC D: (1) If anything, it's the interviewer who is suggesting this (2) the interview is not saying it "will" happen again (thus descriptively inaccurate), just it might happen again & how can we prevent this? (3) even if the AC says might instead of will, this is NOT a flaw! If something happened once, it is perfectly reasonable to assume it might happen again. Thus it's okay to ask questions about preventative measures in the future

Some additional reasons to eliminate each AC

AC B: The stimulus mentions a chance to solve, but that doesn't mean it is solved. And even if it is solved, at what frequency? If it's 1 in 1 million, then that's not "often". "Simply by spotting the mistake" is not supported. There could be other complications that prevent the reader from solving the mystery.

AC D: We only know the companion might divert the reader, but what about the detective? No support. Also, rarely divert is not supported. We could have a 90% diversion rate, and that is certainly not rare; what % of diversion is simply not mentioned.

AC E: So the companions generally (once again, frequency is not discussed) discovers the misleading clue? Does that mean the companions realize their errors? That is not supported.

I feel like the NA (B & E) can be challenged more easily for recent LSAT. This is because to make AC B & E count as NA, you need further assumptions about the timescale. Suppose the reverse polarity might happen once every 1 billion years, then "shortly after" is not a NA. Similarly, AC E kinda requires you to put a further assumption behind what is defined as "soon".

But I digress. AC A is a lot more clear & easy to spot.

The average typing speed is around 40 words per minute, so approximately 1200 words for 30 minutes (assuming you will use 5 min to think about the topic & proofread). While you are writing an essay, your effective typing speed will be cut down drastically. Maybe aim for 400-600 words.

It's more about how you write and how you structure your arguments rather than a contest on the quantity of your writing.

Generally speaking, you should not take it more than 5 times! Anything more than that will raise questions. Note that cancellation also counts as a take, but no-show and withdraw (before the test) will not count.

I think this question could have been a lot harder. if the LSAT made AC B more convoluted. I got it only by using elimination.

AC A: Just no... No evidence of emotional appeal error anywhere. Eliminate

AC B: I don't see any evidence of "sole indicator". But slight hesitation. Skip ahead

AC C: By first glance, I don't know what this is referring to. But no immediate error. Skip ahead

AC D: No evidence of that the two are dissimilar. Eliminate.

AC E: Not group-to-individual error. Eliminate.

Now going back to AC B. The most obvious error in the argument is that the one factor mentioned (T-shirt sale) is not sufficient to overturn the critic's argument. There could be many additional explanations. But that is not the same as saying "it is the only indicator". This is not provable, thus, eliminate.

Taking a closer look at AC C. This is a necessary assumption. Assumes = takes for granted = NA.

C: the critics are wrong = there is popular appeal.

P: similar T-shirt sales between two events.

Thus, what is the assumption? Both events must be popular.

I think the other lesson is that we need to translate the conclusion. Merely leaving it as "critics are mistaken" is hard to relate. Once you say it to yourself, that "our concert" is also popular, then the logic should become quite obvious.

I know many people had questions with Q6. I also got this Q wrong initially. Perhaps I was careless and tried to justify A... anyways, here are some reasons why it is C, not A

(1) one issue with A is as JY mentioned, “many times” is not supported. Some zoologist thought they are rare, then proven not to be as rare as we thought. But how much difference are we talking about?

(2) this is the biggest gap. The passage said “some zoology believed that they were rare” but “others theorized” that they were just under counted. Thus, we cannot say zoologist in general believed... Remember that in LR, a subject group without any modifier means “in general”

Now, C is supported by the beginning of paragraph 3, which suggests that they were well hidden from human, thus it’s MSS that they were difficult for hunters to find them

@ said:

Im in the same boat and i had the truck game as well and i was completely lost on that one..normally i could diagram pretty well and none of the games were like the ones i practiced. the RC section was extremely long passages and it was just very time consuming overall disappointed that the test really didnt mirror the practice exams .

The first three games were very easy “cookie cutter” games, using JY’s words. You probably need some deep reflection into why none of them looked familiar to you.

Did you blank out on the games? Did you go through the core curriculum? How many newer PT did you do? Was it nerves that got you? Etc.

If you had the truck/loading game (#3) and committee game (#4) as your LG section, then it was very easy! I was quite surprised at that one too. Bit disappointed too because I was hoping for a really hard game section to loosen the curve for me!

I noticed there are some questions about Jy’s explanation for Q20

C: think about what your typical politicians do. Can we describe them as all talk, no action? Probably. Ex: despite all the rhetoric by Mayor Smith... housing shortage in the city remains unchanged during the last 10 years...

This matches the passage, which says despite all the rhetoric, the challenge is difficult to resolve.

D: form over content is like focusing on method of presentation (ex PowerPoint, telling a story, giving a speech, etc) over content (housing shortage is at 5%, drug overdose up 2%, etc)

There is no indication of such.

I think there are a few additional subtle reasons to skip D:

#1: The premise is "overwhelming majority", whereas AC D is "a large number". This is a typical ambiguity trap, where a large # could be 5% or 49%. AC that is left to interpretation is quite suspicious on the LSAT.

#2: AC D also uses a comparison with those who do not exercise. There is no such comparison in the stimulus; that would be like saying comparing those who smoke and who do not is not present in the stimulus.

However, when I re-read AC A, I suddenly saw the subtle flaw -- both the stimulus and AC A used a time aspect. The stimulus used 9-year old and the AC used 3 months. And I realized the flaw in the AC A, which is that 3 months is probably too short, that's when I was like wait a minute, there is a time aspect to the stimulus as well. Went back and check -- yup, using 9-years old is also ignoring the time component.

Wisdom of the day: being able to quickly recognize the flaw in the AC might help me to realize what I missed in the stimulus.

Initially, I really failed to see why this question is hard at all. This felt like a 140 level question to me. I just felt surprised at the alleged difficulty of this question. After revisiting this question, I noticed some subtle things about this question.

Firstly, the average test taker is prone to not concretely determine the prem & conclusion of the stimulus. You have to realize that the first sentence is the conclusion. If you diagrammed out the conditional chain & stated the conclusion, this question would have been very easy

Secondly, merely stating the conditional in the stimulus does not mean it is activated. This is often a trap conditional AC where the sufficient condition is not activated by the stimulus, thus incorrect. But in this case, it is the stimulus that failed to activate the conditional logic chain. Failing to see this indicates you might (a) missed it and read too fast (b) you don't understand conditional logics fully yet

Thirdly, the incorrect AC are all correct AC to some different question type!

AC A: Strengthen

AC B: Necessary Assumption

AC C: MSS/MBT inference

AC E: possible causal inference?

In the comments, I see quite a bit of confusion about AC C. Remember that there are often multiple ways to eliminate an AC, and the same is true in this case.

Apart from JY's explanation, which I also didn't quite understand fully, there is another way to look at this AC. This is what I used under timed condition to eliminate this AC.

The stimulus says "one cannot be sure... unless...", which translates into if you are sure, then the necessary conditions are (a) effect, no cause is not happening (b) cause, no effect is not happening. But the stimulus doesn't say "there is a causal relationship" between the example mentioned (environmental factors caused political structure). The purpose of the example is merely to illustrate what is required to prove the causal relation, not to say there is a causal relation.

There are two flaws in this stimulus. First, household moves does not equal number of people (total population) changed. Second, tabulation of address change might not be accurate. Ex: there might be people without drivers licence or specific group of people who barely have mail.

AC A: (1) so how many is many people? 1 or 10 million? (2) even if this is true, then this will result in a net population change of zero. So it does not change our conclusion at all.

AC B: (1) what is the relevance of a census conducted 100 years ago? That is unclear (2) so typically one census shows decline is followed by another census showing increase. But this census is showing decline, so we can’t even use this AC to interpret anything

AC C: remember on the LSAT, many means 1+. Many can be interpreted as 1 or 10 million, so we can’t make up interpretations here about what many means, so this is incorrect.

AC D: this one is telling us that those moving out are underrepresented (you register as 1 household but actually a whole family moves out) and those moving in (1 household = 1 person) are over represented. Thus, this strengthens the conclusion about a population decline.

AC E: (1) we need to make some assumptions about young vs older people, which might or might not be allowed (2) even if we assume young people are singles & unlikely to have address change and assume older people are families & more likely to have address change, this actually results more people moving in than based on household data.

I think this Q also teaches another lesson — you don’t need to catch every error to get a Q correct. For example, I didn’t even catch on to the error about “people who fly today” vs “commercial airlines”, but I noticed the issue of “more likely to contract” — what if we have better cabin air filter tech or something? Whereas E involves a lot less steps

This question is an excellent example of how you don't have to understand the correct AC to work. D is probably too hard and takes too long to work out on the exam.

A: this is comparing lifting vs running, which is far too flawed to weaken.

B: I don't see how this is relevant. the stimulus is about watching yourself vs watching others difference, but B only talks about watching (or listening to) others; B might work if we add anything about watching (or listening) to yourself

C: this is not a flaw. so people who are (perhaps) maxed out on how much they can be motivated, thus watching or not will not have further effect on them. also, this is a typical red flag answer choice involving a smaller niche group

E: this might strengthen the stimulus. E is also suggesting that watching yourself is impacting behavior more than watching others. this aligns with the stimulus