omg literally a passage about glass melting how boring can they get

Interesting. I felt this question was not that difficult at all. If during the period of the LHB we don't see an increased intensity of projectiles on Mars, which is outside of the Earth-Moon system, then it is less likely that the LHB involved the wider (inner) solar system, because we can show at least one planet in the rest of the solar system probably isn't involved. D highlights just one rock; I eliminated right away. And besides, in the final paragraph, the author says that we should not take one rock as evidence that a theory is explanatory.

wowwwww

This is a difficult passage!

I am glad I got this one wrong because it has given me the opportunity to distinguish between implicit and explicit (stated) premises. I picked C because it 'felt' correct: yes, I thought, he says it is 'true' that if they were lost they need to stop, which is why Rivka's conclusion is incorrect. He accepts her rule as acceptable, but points out it denies reality. But this stimulus does not deal in truth or validity as we are meant to understand them on the LSAT.

What Craig really does is he rejects Rivka's implicit premise ('we are not lost'). Rivka signals she does not think they are lost even if she does not say it outright by saying 'if we were lost, we would need to stop (therefore we are not lost).' Craig rejects this implicit premise by pointing out that they are, in fact, lost.

I got B on blind review but initially went with D, because it seemed (seemed being the key word) very much in line with what the argument was doing, so much so that I ignored B even though its correctness has direct evidence in the stimulus.

I don't see how a CLAIM isn't being undermined, here. 'People are morally obligated to act in a certain way because acting otherwise is unnatural' is indeed a claim (dictionary definition of to claim: 'state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.'), not only that, it is a declaration about what constitutes moral behavior that the stimulus speaker is indeed trying to undermine, via an appeal to the definition of 'unnatural.' I disagree with the idea that 'assumptions' don't fall under the category of claims.

But moving on... I realize D is wrong because 'people are morally obligated to act in a certain way because acting otherwise is unnatural' is not an inherently self-contradictory claim. The claim (or 'assumption') is contradicted in the stimulus, but by an external element, namely the definition of 'unnatural,' which is correct answer choice B. Were the statement to be self-contradictory, I assume it would say something like: 'It is natural to perform an unnatural action.'

got this one right but on pure intuition

omfg get tf outta here

Ha, wow. I picked the trap. The reason I ignored C and went with D is because C said 'purchasing and installing'. I thought well, purchase and installation are one-off costs, and we are interested in long-term savings, right? Had answer choice C said 'running and maintaining' the ThermoV generators, I think I would have picked it quickly then moved on. But of course, nothing in the stimulus says 'long-term' savings; this is an assumption I brought in out of nowhere (and who cares, anyway? long term, short term, medium term, we just want the steel plants to save). Bad! However, I ignored the major flaw in D that should have made C the only reasonable choice by POE: 'primary source of electricity.' We don't need electricity to be their main source of energy to have electricity bills, the costs of which could be reduced. Even if a plant ran on 5% electricity and 95% cow dung, that 5% is an expenditure we could reduce.

Grammar has never been a problem for me, but answer choice B is worded in an unreasonably convoluted manner. 'A hypothesis is undermined when a state of affairs does not obtain that which it would be expected to obtain if the hypothesis were true' would make more sense. In the way the LSAT has it written, any reasonable thinker is going to go 'huh? the state of affairs would expect to maintain what'? 'A state of affairs does not obtain would be expected to maintain' seems to grammatically make zero sense. But maybe I should throw my English degree out the window.

Even if you don't do the lawgic chain, B is the only answer that is even slightly supported by the actual words in the stimulus. Using POI would eliminate every other answer choice just as quickly, if not faster, than trying to make sense of it via 'lawgic.' I find reliance on diagramming to be unhelpful for most of these questions, and it can actually make things more confusing in many cases. Rely on reading comprehension first, then diagram if all else fails. Just my two cents.

thank you for including this question! I have felt as though the you try examples were far too easy. I am glad I got this incorrect initially, as I will now be a lot more careful in ensuring I understand what the speakers are actually saying, especially as pertains to the available answer choices. I feel so foolish for having been so confident in B! It is now so obvious why it is wrong. dont conflate skeptics with general public!

#feedback I find the use of 'merely consistent' to be potentially confusing for learners. A better choice is 'unknowable' or something similar. For example, answer choice A, here, isn't 'consistent' in the literal definition with anything suggested by the stimulus-- it is simply outside the bounds of what is being suggested in the stim. I get what you mean, and it doesn't hinder my understanding, but I feel it is not the best choice of terminology.

Not only are the funny examples and asides a much-needed smile respite in the otherwise grueling process of studying for the LSAT, they GENUINELY help me remember the concepts outlined in these lessons.

I was shocked I got this wrong but this exposes the pitfalls that can sometimes occur when you lean toward the pick and go strategy without at least skimming other answers...

I initially picked A because I was like oh yeah, processing regular coffee must cost more than producing decaf coffee, and that is why the author is so 'surprised' that decaf costs more, blah blah move on. WRONGGGG. Now that I am trying to make it 'fit' with the stim, I see why this doesn't matter. Shoulda read more as E is a sparkling gem. We don't need the processing of regular coffee to cost MORE to make the argument work... what we are looking for is to account for an additional step in the providing of decaf that makes it so that the price difference in providing does not account for the difference in the retail price (& as such it must be something else along the way that makes it more expensive... maybe extensive market studies have shown that decaf drinkers are in the top 1% of earners, so coffee shops gauge their prices in expectation that consumers will pay more... yeah, my brain is fried rn).

E eliminates the possibility that the beans in decaf cost more than those used for regular. Ok, so it isn't the purchasing of the beans either. Great. This is another reason as to why the price difference cannot be accounted for the cost of providing the coffee to the consumer.

I do well on NA questions. Surprised this is only 3 stars!

i live in florida and im interested!

Note to self: skip questions like these, return to them with the time you have left at the end.

Oh wow! One of those questions I got wrong because I simply did not read carefully. Of course, I was looking for evidence of termites in the ACs. We already know that sand termites are there! They were literally found in every fairy circle there. We are looking for further evidence that the BURROWING activities of the termites caused the fairy circles. Gosh darn it.

oooooooooh gosh!! CAREFUL READING IS SO IMPORTANT!

This is going to save me so much time. Thank you

Game changing

Oooooh, E is such a convincing trap! But Franklin doesn't assume that Miller would have been ascertained (confirmed) to be the culprit had the handwriting been her. He would simply continue to suspect her according to the language in the stimulus.