Question Type:

Must Be False ". . . each of the following could be true EXCEPT:"

The Stimulus in My Words:

In the last 75 million years of the Mesozoic era, often called the Cretaceous period, dinosaurs roamed the Earth. During that time, the southern half of a region was covered by water. Dinosaurs lived only on the land. Therefore, they did not live in the southern half of a region because it was covered by water. Therefore, Plesiosaurs--a swimming reptile that lived during this period is not classified as a dinosaur. Also, no single species of dinosaur lived throughout the entire Mesozoic era. A single species, however, could have lived out the duration of the Cretaceous period.

Argument Being Posited (if any):

This is a bunch of premises and sub conclusions. There is no real argument.

Premise(s) (if any):

1. Last 75m of Mesozoic -> dinos (fact from stimulus).

2. Last 75m of Mesozoic -> south 1/2 of region covered by water (fact from stimulus).

3. Last. 75m of Mesozoic -> dinos lived only on land (fact from stimulus).

4. Plesiosaur -> swim -> /live only on land -> not a dino (fact from stimulus expanded).

5. Dino -> did not live through the entire Mesozoic era (fact from stimulus).

Conclusion(s) (if any):

1. Plesiosaur -> swim -> /live only on land (this is a fact from the stimulus taken and expanded).

2. Dino -> could live through the Cretaceous period (assumption based on the stimulus see premise 5).

My Target:

I am looking to see what conclusion might be true based on the given premises and conclusions and--also--I want to see which one answer choice cannot be concluded.

Answer Choice Breakdowns & Explanation of Reasoning:

(A) This could be true. From what we know, there was no body of water covering the northern half of the region and therefore it is plausible that dinos lived on this part of the region. This plausibility makes answer choice A incorrect.

(B) This is possible. We do not know that Plesiosaurus did inhabit the southern half during the Cretaceous period. All we know is that Plesiosaurus was a swimming reptile. Sure, it could have lived in the wet southern half of the region, but we do not know. This plausibility makes answer choice B the incorrect answer choice.

(C) This might be true, but we do not know. All we know about the Plesiosaurus is that it is a swimming reptile. We don't know where all the bodies of water were nor do we know if it was a land and water reptile. This is a plausible answer choice and it is--therefore--not the correct answer choice.

(D) This might be true. There may have been other available regions for dinosaurs to live in during the period and--thus--they did not have need of the northern half of the region. For this reason, this answer choice is not correct.

(E) This must be false. If dinosaurs could only inhabit land and not water, it would be impossible for them to inhabit a certain portion of the region for at least a portion of the Mesozoic era. For this reason, answer choice E is the correct choice.

Correct Answer Choice:

E

Lesson(s) Learned:

I spent a lot of time on this question and still got it wrong. It would have been much better for me to just find an answer that made sense and move on rather than waste the time that I did on the question.

Question Type:

Must Be False ". . . each of the following could be true EXCEPT:"

The Stimulus in My Words:

People want to be wise and intelligent. However, just because you are one doesn't imply you are the other. I have seen that most people only have one of these characteristics.

Argument Being Posited (if any):

There is not really much of an argument, just a bunch of statements of fact/belief.

Premise(s) (if any):

1. Person -> want to be w (fact from stimulus).

2. Person -> want to be I (fact from stimulus).

3. I -/> w (fact from stimulus).

4. W -/> i (fact from stimulus).

5. I -most-> /w (experiential belief from stimulus).

6. W -most-> /i (experiential belief from stimulus).

Conclusion(s) (if any):

My Target:

I am looking to find four statements that parallel or make sense with these premises being true. I am also looking for at least one statement that is false based on these premises.

Answer Choice Breakdowns & Explanation of Reasoning:

(A) Person -most-> /w, P -most-> /i. This concept might make sense in the context of the final statement in the stimulus if the portion of people that the essayist meets is relatively small compared to the total population. Basically, the stimulus says that most people the essayist meets are either intelligent or wise, but this answer choice states that most people are neither intelligent nor wise which may be true if the essayist doesn't know that many people. Because this might be true, this must be an incorrect answer choice.

(B) This could be true for the same reasons that A could be true.

(C) This could be true based on the stimulus. It might be the case that nobody has both qualities even if people can have both qualities. For this reason, this answer choice is not correct.

(D) This is false. The essayist clearly has met people who are either intelligent or wise. Therefore, the fact is that both intelligent and wise people do exist. For this reason, this answer choice is patently false.

(E) This might be true. In fact, the essayist openly states that they have had the experience of meeting people who are intelligent and not wise. Therefore, this answer choice is plausible and--thus--not the correct answer choice.

Correct Answer Choice:

D

Lesson(s) Learned:

The lesson learned with this question is that it is not always productive to diagram. For this particular question, I think that it would have been better for me to try and internalize the information before reading the answer choices rather than rushing through it all.

Question Type:

Must Be False ". . . which . . . can be most justifiably rejected . . ?"

The Stimulus in My Words:

Crows sleep in roosts. Crows leave the roost during the day to hunt. Crows hunt within 130km of their roost. Crows typically occupy a specific roost for several years. Crows, when they abandon the roost, they typically choose a new one within 8km of the one they abandon.

Argument Being Posited (if any):

Not much of an argument, just claims.

Premise(s) (if any):

1. Crow -> sleep in roost (fact from stimulus).

2. Crow -> leave roost to hunt (fact from stimulus).

3. Crow -> hunt within 130 km (fact from stimulus).

4. Crow -most-> maintain roost for several years (fact from stimulus).

5. Crow (abandoning your roost) -most-> move within 8km (fact from stimulus).

Conclusion(s) (if any):

1. Sleep in the roost leave roost to hunt (conclusion from 1&2).

2. Sleep in the roost hunt within 130 km (conclusion from 1&3).

3. Sleep in the roost maintain roost for several years (conclusion from 1&4).

4. Sleep in the roost move within 8km (conclusion from 1&5).

5. Leave roost to hunt hunt within 130 km (conclusion 2&3).

6. Leave roost to hunt maintain roost for several years (conclusion 2&4).

7. Leave roost to hunt move within 8km (conclusion 2&5).

8. Hunt within 130 km maintain roost for several years (conclusion 3&4)

9. Hunt within 130 km move within 8km (conclusion 3&5).

10. Maintain roost for several years move within 8km (conclusion 4&5).

My Target:

I'm looking to map out logic as quickly as possible and find what doesn't fit.

Answer Choice Breakdowns & Explanation of Reasoning:

(A) Maybe. It could be the case that crows abandon their roost site only in response to increase in population of the flock. We just don't know this for sure.

(B) Maybe. This is could the case. According to the stimulus, most (not all) crows will only hunt within a certain area and will not leave that area for any reason until they have moved their roost respectively. Therefore, this is possible and not the correct answer choice.

(C) Maybe. The stimulus just doesn't provide information on where most of the hunting takes place beyond what it says about the 130km limit.

(D) Maybe. The stimulus doesn't give information about how hard it is to move a roost.

(E) No. The reason why a crow leaves a roost is not given, but it would not make sense that it does so because there is a depletion of resources. This is the case because the roost typically only moves 8km or less away which means that the hunting area and--therefore--the resource availability is pretty much the same in roost spot A as it is in roost spot B.

Correct Answer Choice:

E

Lesson(s) Learned:

Diagramming this kind of thing out takes a lot of time. However, knowing what information is relevant (like that crows won't scavenge outside of 130 km without moving the roost) helps me to move along faster. The key is to note the information that is relevant in the answer choices and then be able to recall it quickly. Recall is a huge area for growth in LSAT prep.

Also, remember to pay attention to words like "most" and "all" answer choices will hinge on these words and our accuracy in interpreting their meaning in the passage. Don't just skip over these words.

Question Type:

Must Be False ". . . each of the following could be true EXCEPT:"

The Stimulus in My Words:

Sharks have more cartilage in comparison to bone than any other organism. Sharks have more cancer resistance than any other organism. Shark have cartilage with tumor stopping substance. If you're a cancer patient, your odds of positive therapy response will not be higher than they will be if you consume shark cartilage.

Argument Being Posited (if any):

There is no argument, just claims.

Premise(s) (if any):

1. Shark -> more cartilage:bone than any other organism (fact from stimulus).

2. Shark -> more cancer resistance than any other organism (fact from stimulus).

3. Shark -> cartilage with tumor stopping power (fact from stimulus).

4. Cancer patient -> no better treatment than consuming shark cartilage fact from stimulus).

Conclusion(s) (if any):

1. More cartilage:bone than any other organism more cancer resistance than any other organism (conclusion from 1&2).

2. More cartilage:bone than any other organism cartilage with tumor stopping power (conclusion 1&3).

3. More cancer resistance than any other organism cartilage with tumor stopping power (conclusion 2&3).

My Target:

I am looking for an answer choice that doesn't follow based on the premises and conclusions listed above.

Answer Choice Breakdowns & Explanation of Reasoning:

(A) No. This is false. The stimulus states that shark resistance is greater than any other organism. There is no note of any organism being a shark's equal in this regard. For this reason, this is the correct answer choice.

(B) Maybe. The organism most susceptible to cancer--which we do not know specifically from the stimulus, but that we can assume is not a shark--might have a lower percentage of cartilage than some organisms less susceptible to cancer. However, it will not have a lower percentage of cartilage than a shark. For these reasons, this is the wrong answer choice.

(C) Maybe. The stimulus does not provide specific information about whether this substance that inhibits cancer is found in other organisms. For this reason, this is not the correct answer choice.

(D) Maybe. There is not any information on responses to therapy nor is there information on what a "dramatic" response is. This answer is--therefore--incorrect.

(E) Maybe. There is no information about immune systems given in the stimulus. For this reason, this answer is not correct.

Correct Answer Choice:

A

Lesson(s) Learned:

Details are everything. The answer to a question lies deep in its details. It is so essential to be able to get to the relevant information quickly and to do so without creating problems of pace.

What gets me here is the word "either" that is not listed anywhere in our sufficient and necessary conditions lessons. How do I know to put /W -> ID vs W -> /ID? This is a major hangup for me

#help

Question Type:

Must Be False Except "Each . . . conflicts with the letter writer's view EXCEPT:"

The Stimulus in My Words:

Vexone kills all cockroaches that exist in North America. This

Argument Being Posited (if any):

Premise(s) (if any):

Conclusion(s) (if any):

My Target: I am looking for a statement that does not conflict with the statements given in the stimulus.

Answer Choice Breakdowns & Explanation of Reasoning:

(A) This is not true. Vexone, as stated in the stimulus, "is effective against . . . all of the . . . 4000 cockroach species that infest North America." This answer is--therefore--not correct.

(B) This is not true. Roach Ender contains vexone and, according to the stimulus, "vexone is effective against . . . all of the . . . 4000 cockroach species that infest North America." This answer is--therefore--not correct.

(C) This might be true. The stimulus stipulates that "vexone is effective against . . . all of the . . . 4000 cockroach species that infest North America." This is the correct answer choice.

(D) This is not not true, the stimulus stipulates that ""vexone is effective against . . . all of the . . . 4000 cockroach species that infest North America" and that this has been tested repeatedly. This is--therefore--not the correct answer choice.

(E) This is not necessarily true. Perhaps Roach Ender was tested against all of the more than 4000 species that are in North America. We really do not know. This answer is--therefore--not correct.

Correct Answer Choice:

C

Lesson(s) Learned:

Pay close attention to the more than and less than statements. They can really trip you up if you're not careful. Also, note the difference between must be false and must be false except.

Question Type:

Must Be False ". . . which one of the following CANNOT be true?"

The Stimulus in My Words:

Scientists believe that deforestation was the cause of an economic collapse that led the southern Levant to be abandoned around 6,000 years ago.

Argument Being Posited (if any):

Deforestation caused an economic collapse that led people to leave the southern Levant 6,000 years ago.

Premise(s) (if any):

1. The Levant was populous in prehistoric times (fact from stimulus).

2. Around 6,000 years ago the southern Levant was abandoned (fact from stimulus).

Conclusion(s) (if any):

1. Deforestation led to an economic collapse that led the population of the southern Levant to leave it 6,000 years ago.

My Target: I am looking for claims that are inconsistent with the premises and the conclusion offered.

Answer Choice Breakdowns & Explanation of Reasoning:

(A) This is certainly possible. Sheep could have grazed on the trees that existed until 6,000 years ago. However, this answer choice is not necessarily true. Despite that it is incorrect because of the fact that it could be true.

(B) This could be true. If trees were used in making a plaster that disappeared about 6,000 years ago, it would be a safe hypothesis to make to say that the trees may have disappeared. This might be true and it is therefore not the right answer choice.

(C) This might be true. It could totally be that deforestation was isolated to the southern Levant and led to the abandonment of the area. Therefore, this is plausible and not the correct answer choice.

(D) This seems to be false. It is hard to tell, but if scientists claim that deforestation was the cause and scientific techniques show that there were no trees to be deforested, then the scientists would either be doing a very bad job or the data would be incorrect. This seems like it must be false based on the credibility of scientists. I don't like it, but this is probably the answer choice.

(E) This might be true because there is nothing in the stimulus that makes it certainly false. It really could be that there are few traces of stone and brick and that could totally imply that buildings were made of wood. This would make sense with the hypothesis too. Therefore, this is not the correct answer choice.

Correct Answer Choice:

D

Lesson(s) Learned:

Sometimes the answer is not exactly what you want it to be. That is okay. Make your decision and move on.

Question Type:

Must Be False: ". . . which one of the following CANNOT be true?"

The Stimulus in My Words:

If deceit is a quality of rottenness, all effective politicians are rotten. If a politician is to be effective, they must be deceitful. Someone who is scrupulously honest, cannot be an effective politician.

Argument Being Posited (if any):

If the person stating the stimulus is right in their assumptions, then all effective politicians are rotten and the person that believes only a few in the barrel of politicians are rotten may or may not be right. This is essentially irrelevant information

Premise(s) (if any):

1. (D -> R) -> all effective politicians (R) (claim made in the stimulus).

2. Effective politician -> D -> R (implication of a claim made in the stimulus).

3. SH -> /effective politician (fact from stimulus).

Conclusion(s) (if any):

1. Effective politician -> R (premises 2).

2. Effective politician -> /SH (premise 3 contrapositive).

3. R /SH (premises 2 and 3 combined).

My Target: I am looking for the answer choice that contradicts the conclusions implied by the premises.

Answer Choice Breakdowns & Explanation of Reasoning:

(A) P All (R) This could actually be true without causing problems, but we do not know if it is true. Maybe some people think that all politicians are rotten, but that has no bearing on this question.

(B) This could be true. Perhaps some politicians are scrupulously honest. This would only imply that they are not effective according to the stimulus. Nothing is wrong with this as an idea.

(C) P define PJ "ORS" This could absolutely be the case, but it would have no bearing on the stimulus. Therefore, this is not the correct answer choice.

(D) D /E It could indeed be the case that some deceitful politicians are ineffective. This would follow logically because it has no bearing on the premises of the stimulus.

(E) This must be false. The stimulus overtly states that scrupulously honest politicians cannot be effective. This is, therefore, false.

Correct Answer Choice:

E

Lesson(s) Learned:

Wording gets tricky in the stimulus. Be careful of what is necessary and what is sufficient. Diagrams help, but move quickly.

Question Type:

Must Be False "which one of the following CANNOT be true?"

The Stimulus in My Words:

Not necessary.

Argument Being Posited (if any):

Not necessary.

Premise(s) (if any):

Not necessary.

Conclusion(s) (if any):

Not necessary.

My Target: I am looking for an answer choice that is not consistent with the stimulus.

Answer Choice Breakdowns & Explanation of Reasoning:

(A) This could be true. There is no detail about Bach's thoughts about the close of the year in the stimulus.

(B) This could be true. Attitudes and feelings may be distinct, but--either way--this is consistent.

(C) This cannot be true. Bach was a master artist and--therefore--never created in order to express his feelings. This says that he created something to express his feeling and it is--thus--false.

(D) This could be true. We cannot know either way based on the information given in the stimulus.

(E) Same as E.

Correct Answer Choice:

C

Lesson(s) Learned:

The hangup on this question could have been answer choice B because of the concept of feelings and attitude being similar. One could question that and get distracted. This question taught me that it is better to keep reading through the answer choices if something doesn't make sense and come back if you realize that it does or move on if you find the right answer. A big key to success on the LSAT is to just keep moving. If something gets you stuck, move on to something else. You have no time to delay.

Question Type:

Must Be True ". . . which one of the following must also be true?"

The Stimulus in My Words:

If a committee member represents the construction industry, that person may be part of the group of committee members with financial interests in the committee's decisions. If a person is a committee member, they do not live in the suburbs. If a person is a committee member, they may be a part of the group of people that work in the suburbs.

Argument Being Posited (if any):

Premise(s) (if any):

1. M(CI) $$$ (fact from stimulus).

2. M(CI) work in the suburbs (fact from stimulus).

3. M(CI) -> /live in the suburbs (fact from stimulus).

Conclusion(s) (if any):

The standard implications.

My Target:

I am looking for an answer that runs parallel to the standard implications of the premises.

Answer Choice Breakdowns & Explanation of Reasoning:

(A) $$$ -> /M(CI). This is patently false. See premise 1.

(B) $$$ -> /live in the suburbs. This is false. The implication of premises 1 and 3 is $$$ /live in the suburbs. This is not parallel to the statement being made. None is not the same as some.

(C) $$$ work in the suburbs. Two some statements does not make a valid implication. Therefore, there are no valid implications of premises 1 and 2. This answer choice is wrong.

(D) M(CI) /work in the suburbs. This is not a logically valid statement because it runs against the contrapositive of premise 2. Therefore, this is not a correct answer choice.

(E) $$$ /live in the suburbs. This follows validly as the implication of premises 2 and 3. Therefore, this is the correct answer choice.

Correct Answer Choice:

E

Lesson(s) Learned:

This question taught me about the relationship between many and almost all. While many does imply 51-100% of a particular group, it does not necessitate a higher than 51% assumption. Almost all really does lead to an almost 100% (i.g., 90-100%).

Question Type:

Must Be True ". . . which one of the following must also be true . . ?"

The Stimulus in My Words:

Kay's principle for voting: vote for the candidate with whom she disagrees on the least number of issues so long as she disagrees with other candidates. In the upcoming election there are three candidates L, M, and N. Kay only agrees with Medina on one issue and that issue is the only one important to Kay.

Argument Being Posited (if any):

Premise(s) (if any):

1. If disagree with X(2), Y(3), Z(4) -> Vote for W(1)

Conclusion(s) (if any):

My Target:

I am looking for statements that can be paralleled with the reasoning in the stimulus (i.e., the premise).

Answer Choice Breakdowns & Explanation of Reasoning:

(A) This is not correct. Given that Kay agrees with Medina and disagrees with Legrand and Norton, she disagrees with L and N more than she disagrees with Medina. This makes the only proper choice voting for Medina. This answer is therefore, incorrect because it includes, in the line of possible candidates, Legrand.

(B) This is correct. There are only three candidates and two of them should not be voted for by Kay according to her principle for voting. Those two candidates are Legrand and Norton. As expressed here, voting for these two represents the only unacceptable course of action. Therefore, this answer is consistent with the stimulus and correct.

(C) This is not true. It is acceptable for Kay to vote for Medina.

(D) This is not true. It is acceptable for Kay to vote for Medina. The only unacceptable courses are votes for Legrand or Norton.

(E) This is not correct. The only acceptable vote from kay is a vote for Medina. Neither Legrand nor Norton is an acceptable vote according to the principle given as guide.

Correct Answer Choice:

B

Lesson(s) Learned:

This question taught me the importance of looking at the contrapositives. In this case, it is a contrapositive that is the answer choice.

Question Type:

Must Be True ". . . which one of the following must also be true . . ?"

The Stimulus in My Words:

Kay's principle for voting: vote for the candidate with whom she disagrees on the least number of issues so long as she disagrees with other candidates. In the upcoming election there are three candidates L, M, and N. Kay only agrees with Medina on one issue and that issue is the only one important to Kay.

Argument Being Posited (if any):

Premise(s) (if any):

1. If disagree with X(2), Y(3), Z(4) -> Vote for W(1)

Conclusion(s) (if any):

My Target:

I am looking for statements that can be paralleled with the reasoning in the stimulus (i.e., the premise).

Answer Choice Breakdowns & Explanation of Reasoning:

(A) If there are no issues important to Kay, the principle listed would simply not apply. Therefore, we cannot infer anything because we do not have the proper grounds to do so based on the stimulus. This is not the correct answer.

(B) Just because Kay agrees with the candidates on most issues has no bearing on whether it is acceptable for her to vote for a particular candidate. She votes based on disagreement not agreement. Therefore, this statement does not follow the logic of the stimulus. For this reason, the answer choice is incorrect.

(C) This--like answer choice B--fails to adequately answer the question of whether it is appropriate or inappropriate for her to vote for the candidate with whom she agrees on a singular issue. She does not vote based on agreement. Therefore, this answer choice does not give us footing to make an inference about her voting decision.

(D) This answer choice is correct because if there is a three way tie between candidates with whom she disagrees, then there is a three way tie for her vote. Assuming that she cannot vote for more than one individual, she would not vote rather than vote for one of the three against her guiding principle.

(E) This is not necessarily true. It may be true that she does not vote for someone with whom she disagrees with more than she agrees, but this would not have been an act of necessity. Rather, she would have not voted for this person because there was someone else in the race with whom she disagreed on less issues than the individual for whom she did not vote.

Correct Answer Choice:

D

Lesson(s) Learned:

This question taught me that a big long intimidating passage, like this one, can be boiled down to a simple principle (sometimes). For example, this question is boiled down to the principle that "Kay should vote for the person with whom she disagrees the least." That is much simpler than the stimulus that is given.

Question Type:

Must Be True ". . . which one of the following must also be true?"

The Stimulus in My Words:

If the policy upsets faculty, modify it. If the police upsets students, make a new one. The policy will either upset faculty or students.

Argument Being Posited (if any):

Premise(s) (if any):

1. UF -> Modify (fact from stimulus).

2. US -> New (fact from stimulus).

3. UF -> /US (fact from stimulus).

Conclusion(s) (if any):

My Target:

I am looking to extract a logical inference from the premises given in the stimulus.

Answer Choice Breakdowns & Explanation of Reasoning:

(A) There is no indication that the popularization of a particular policy will have any effect on either students or faculty. Therefore, this statement provides information that is outside the scope of the question and stimulus. For this reason, the correct answer choice is not this one.

(B) This statement does not follow logically. In the stimulus, there is no statement of what should be done. We only have a list of facts from which to draw conclusions. Therefore, the claim that anything "should" be done is simply untenable.

(C) This does not follow logically. UF -> Modify not PF -> Modify. This is not the correct answer choice because just because a policy precludes a reduction of popularity among faculty members does not necessitate modification of the policy. Rather, if a policy is already unpopular among faculty members, it should be modified.

(D) This answer choice provides a completely false statement in direct opposition to the statement in the stimulus that US -> New. If PS -> no new policy is needed. For this reason, this answer choice is incorrect.

(E) This answer choice follows logically with the stimulus because if a policy is popular with the faculty, then it is unpopular with the students and if a policy is unpopular with the students, a new policy should be drawn up. For this reason, E is the correct answer choice.

Correct Answer Choice: E

Lesson(s) Learned:

Diagramming these things out really helps and when there are words like popular/unpopular, in other words, terms that can be easily manipulated, these terms should be carefully read during the exam.

Question Type:

Must Be True ". . . which of the following must be true?"

The Stimulus in My Words:

If mail is properly addressed, most arrives within two days of being sent. If mail is properly addressed, it only takes longer than 2 days if it is damaged. Most mail arrives 3 or more days after being sent.

Argument Being Posited (if any):

Premise(s) (if any):

1. Properly addressed -most-> arrives in /damaged in transit (facts from stimulus).

2. Mail arrives -most-> 3+ days post sent date (fact from stimulus).

Conclusion(s) (if any):

My Target:

I am looking to extract some sort of true statement that aligns with the premises given.

Answer Choice Breakdowns & Explanation of Reasoning:

(A) This statement is patently false. In fact, the opposite is true based on the premises. Most mail that is correctly addressed is not damaged in transit.

(B) While this may be true, we do not have the information in the stimulus that would make this certainly true. There is nothing saying that if mail is incorrectly labeled it cannot arrive in less time than expected/standard. For this reason, this answer choice is incorrect.

(C) This is a lot like the oldest trick in the book. Here, LSAC has attempted to confuse test takers by mixing up the necessary and sufficient clauses. However, this is not a conditional logic statement, it is an existential logic statment. Therefore, the stimulus provides the information that we need to come to the conclusion that this answer choice is correct. Properly addressed mail -most-> arrives within 2 days. Furthermore, if mail that is properly addressed doesn't arrive within two days, it was damaged. This leads us to the conclusion that If mail arrives within two days, it most likely not damaged and properly addressed.

(D) This must be the case. If nearly all (lets say 98/100 pieces of mail) of the correctly addressed mail arrives at its destination within 2 days, then only 2/100 pieces of correctly addressed mail arrive after 2 days. In order for the statement from the stimulus that "most mail arrives after three days" to be true, it would have to be the case that at least 97/97 incorrectly addressed pieces of mail arrive after three days. This would make it so that 99/197 pieces of mail arrive after 2 days and 98/197 arrive within 2 days. 99 > 98, therefore, this would imply that more mail arrives after two days than before and the answer choice "a large proportion of mail is incorrectly addressed" would be correct. However, this answer choice is made very broad with the word "large" being totally unqualified. It is important to pick up on this and note this answer choice as correct.

(E) This is not the case. See explanation of answer choice D.

Correct Answer Choice:

D

Lesson(s) Learned:

This is a hard question. Don't worry about that, though. Worry about breaking the question down into smaller bites and eating them one at a time.

Question Type:

Must Be True ". . . which one of the following must also be true . . ?"

The Stimulus in My Words:

In Q, in 1991, there was less available coal than there had been in 1990. Q has not imported or exported coal.

Argument Being Posited (if any):

Premise(s) (if any):

1. Q1991 -> less coal than 1990 (fact from stimulus).

2. Q1990 -> more coal than 1991 (fact from stimulus).

3. Q post 1970 -> no imports or exports of coal (fact from stimulus).

Conclusion(s) (if any):

My Target: Which answer choice can be extracted from the premises?

Answer Choice Breakdowns & Explanation of Reasoning:

(A) If indeed more coal was mined in 1990 than in 1991, the stimulus would make sense. However, just because the answer choice allows the stimulus to make sense does not imply that the answer choice provides the correct explanation. While this may be correct, it is not necessarily correct and for that reason this is the wrong answer choice.

(B) This is true. Essentially this answer choice is stating that there was no coal surplus for the year. In other words, those burning coal in Q during the year 1990 did not mine more than they used. This lack of surplus is made visible in the decrease in year end coal supply available from 1990 to 1991. Good thing they mined so well in '91-- otherwise, maybe they would have run out!

(C) This may be the case. However, we cannot know if consumption in 1990 was greater than in 1991 based on the stimulus. This information is simply not provided. Therefore--because this information is outside of the scope of the question--this answer choice is not correct.

(D) This certainly could be the case however, the same explanation as given for answer choice C applies here.

(E) Same as C and D.

Correct Answer Choice:

B

Lesson(s) Learned:

These kinds of questions with multi-year datasets are often best depicted with graphics. Drawing a quick graphic or picturing one in the mind's eye is very helpful.

Type of Question: Must Be True ". . . which one of the following must also be true . . ?"

The Stimulus in My Words: Government says the NPPs are safe. Government, based on this claim that NPPs are safe, claims that public fear of nuclear accidents is groundless. Government claims that their recent action was taken to protect the industry from bankruptcy. Industry would only go bankrupt in the event of a nuclear accident. Therefore, public fear is grounded.

Argument Being Made: Public fear is grounded.

Premise(s):

1. Government:

A. (NPP -> Safe) -> Fears = Groundless

B. NA -> Bankrupt Nuclear Industry

a. NA -> | Bankrupt Nuclear Industry

1. | = limited liability policy

Conclusion(s):

1. Public

A. If | exists -> Risk of NA -> Fears are grounded

My Target: I am looking for ramifications of the government's position.

Answer Choice Breakdowns:

(A) This is not necessarily true. Sure, it might be true. However, the claim that the NPPs are safe may actually be true despite public perception otherwise, based on government actions connected to the NPPs.

(B) This is the case exactly. The government's position is inconsistent. They continue to press the notion that the country's nuclear power plants are safe while at the same time developing policies that would only exist if there NPPs were not safe. The government is being inconsistent.

(C) Misrepresentation might be a great word to describe what is going on, but we really don't know because the reasons given for taking action could actually be legitimate. The government has represented the limited liability policy as a policy in place to protect the industry in case of nuclear accidents. This has caused public fear. The government, however, still claims that the NPPs are safe and this may really be true. We simply do no know whether or not the government is being fully transparent and properly representing what is going on.

(D) This is patently false. We know based on the stimulus that financial liability in the case of a nuclear accident does pose a threat to the nuclear industry. This is something that the author claims the government has said.

(E) This is an unknown. There may be many ramifications of a nuclear accident outside of the scope of this stimulus.

My Answer Choice: B

Correct Answer Choice: B

Type of Question: Must Be True ". . . which one of the following must also be true?"

The Stimulus in My Words: Histamine is released when pollen and allergens enter the nasal passages. Histamine causes runny nose. Histamine causes congestion. Histamine causes sneezing. Antihistamines minimize runny nose. Antihistamines minimize congestion. Antihistamines minimize sneezing. Antihistamines cause drowsiness. Histamine plays no role in cold symptoms.

Argument Being Made: Histamine plays no role in cold symptoms.

Premise(s):

1. Histamine -> Released b/c of allergens in nose (fact from stimulus).

2. Histamine -> Runny nose (fact from stimulus).

3. Histamine -> Congestion (fact from stimulus).

4. Histamine -> Sneezing (fact from stimulus).

5. Antihistamine -> /Runny Nose (fact from stimulus).

6. Antihistamine -> /Congestion (fact from stimulus).

7. Antihistamine -> /Sneezing (fact from stimulus).

8. Antihistamine -> Drowsiness (fact from stimulus).

Conclusion(s):

1. Histamine -> /Cold Symptoms (conclusion from stimulus).

2. One can exchange allergic runny nose, congestion, and sneezing for drowsiness by taking an antihistamine (implication of the premises).

My Target: I am looking for something that follows close to conclusion 2.

Answer Choice Breakdowns:

(A) This is unknown. Yes, pollen and other allergens may be correlated with colds, but we cannot know, based on the information provided in the stimulus, if they actually cause colds.

(B) Difficulty of treatment is not a topic of discussion in the stimulus. It is relevant in the field of medicine, but with regard to the implications of the stimulus, there is really no reason for this information to be relevant.

(C) If histamine is not the cause of cold symptoms, then antihistamine, which is used to block the symptoms related to histamine release may or may not have an impact on the cold symptoms (if taken alone). This follows magically. However, this is not what the stimulus says and it is--therefore--not correct.

(D) Sleeplessness seems to be connected to drowsiness in this question. However, the reality is that histamines have the effect of causing drowsiness, but that does not mean that antihistamines can be effective treatment for sleeplessness as caused by allergies.

(E) This answer choice operates by stating that any effect antihistamines may have in reducing cold symptoms does not result from its intended effects. The stimulus makes clear that histamine plays no role in the processes by which colds produce their symptoms and--therefore--antihistamine is going to play no direct role in effecting the processes by which colds produce their symptoms. However, there may be some indirect consequences of taking antihistamines that actually helps reduce the symptoms of a cold.

My Answer Choice: E

Correct Answer Choice: E

Explanation (if I got it wrong):

Best thing I ever did for my LSAT study bandwidth: bought a new bike and started riding everyday for a few hours. I am in better shape and I have a lot of fun biking.

Something I have noticed about the best lawyers is that they are sensational at their profession and typically obsessed with some miscellaneous hobby. You have to have time away from work. If you don't, you're not going to be okay.

Depending on what you want to achieve and time commitments, I may be interested.

The position has been filled.

Hi there,

My name is Rob. I have a 3.92 GPA and I am PTing 150-160 with BR at 170+. I will be studying and prepping until my score is consistently over 170. I don't care about what cycle that puts me in.

I am looking for someone who really wants to succeed at the LSAT and wants to help me succeed.

If you are interested in a rigorous and concentrated approach with no B.S. allowed, I am in. I'd be happy to jump on the phone and talk or zoom to get more into details.

The study schedule that I can reasonably accommodate right now (through May 2021) is as follows:

Monday: Full Exam/Blind Review (3-5 hrs)

Tuesday: Single Section (30-45 min)

Wednesday: Single Section (30-45 min)

Thursday: Single Section (30-45 min)

Friday: Deep Review/Analysis (3-5 hours)

Saturday: Full Exam/Review (3-5 hrs)

Sunday: Review/Off (0-2 hrs)

I can foresee a "study buddy" relationship being as follows:

A regular phone call/zoom meeting to talk about questions/problems with LSAT

Regular accountability check-ins to push each other

If you're interested, message me directly. I only want people who are SERIOUS about this.

Best,

Rob

I am in need of an accountability partner as well. If you're interested, I am serious about succeeding. However, if you're skeptical of your ability to hold me to account or keep up with a consistent schedule (even if its sparse), I am not your guy.

Best,

Rob

Any advice for us still working at it?

Question Type:

Quasi Parallel Method of Reasoning "The pattern of reasoning in the argument is LEAST similar to that in which one of the following?"

The Stimulus in My Words:

Attendance should be the administrative priority. No school does any good if students fail to come to school.

Argument Being Posited (if any):

Attendance should be the administrative priority.

Premise(s) (if any):

1. Administrator -> want success (assumption based on the stimulus).

2. /Attendance -> /success (fact from stimulus).

Conclusion(s) (if any):

1. Attendance -> administrator priority (conclusion from stimulus).

My Target:

I am looking for four parallel options and the correct answer will be the fifth option that is not parallel. The parallel options will state that something should be top priority because without it everything else is superfluous. The non-parallel options will not do this.

Answer Choice Breakdowns & Explanation of Reasoning:

(A) Without ease, all else is superfluous. Good.

(B) Without food, all else is superfluous. Good.

(C) Without clues, all else is superfluous. Good.

(D) Without books, all else is superfluous. Good.

(E) This is the correct answer. While it does state that something should be top priority, it fails to state that without this priority all else is superfluous.

Correct Answer Choice: E

Lesson(s) Learned:

This question type throws a bit of a wrinkle in the idea of parallel reasoning. With this being the case, it became even more important to pay close attention to the stem and really know what was being asked before moving forward on the question.

If I were you, I wouldn't waste my time. As long as you're not a criminal, you shouldn't have any problem getting into a top 7 school with those numbers.