I got this answer right timed and wrong in blind review. (D) is wrong because the "no less than" is so broad. "No less than" means "at least as or more." So the answer is saying that "Storytelling was at least as important if not more important than modern cultures." Well, which one is it? Was it at least as important, or more than? It's just not supported at all. The first sentence, "Storytelling appears to be a universal aspect of both past and present" does not indicate degrees of importance.

LOL at the "I'm offended" crowd of several years ago. Hoping they've grown out of their pink hair phase.

> Complains about not seeing all answers prior to lesson

> Gets all answers in formal logic

I'm just a POE boy.

In this passage I imagined the author being a certain builder in a blue suit and long red tie calling the Modern Movement losers and idiots, total morons, for making the worst buildings in the history of buildings, while he built the biggest most beautiful buildings. Yet in question #23, being "dismissive", "dictating", and having "confirmation bias", is only being unimpressed? Maybe I'm just not familiar with the way people in the building industry speak, but this passage seemed a lot more hyperbolic and exasperating.

I interpreted this argument as a Correlation - Causation argument. I didn't originally pick (A) because I thought it directly countered the premises. The first line says "Polls negatively influence voters." I thought (A) was like, "nah, it doesn't." I picked (C). But then I realized that (C) strengthens the argument by showing one example of "bad influence." All other answers sucked. So I went back to (A) and realized that we could allow the cause (MC) to stand, but (A) shows that while there is a cause, it shows that the assumed outcome of the cause does not occur. After all, the author does assume that polling is causing the bad influence. Allowing the cause to stand but negating the assumed affect is one way to weaken.

I have no idea how I only missed the last question. I was half asleep at 3am when I drilled this passage. I only picked my answer because I wanted to end the drill.

The simple explanation is that the argument assumes that Homo Sapiens and Modern Humans have similar DNA. So if Homo Sapiens interbred with Neanderthals, we could reasonably conclude that there should be some DNA continuity between Homo Sapiens, Neanderthals, and Modern Humans. The fact that there is almost no continuity between Neanderthals and Humans shows then that Homo Sapiens did not interbreed with Neanderthals.

AHHH but wait. What if Homo Sapiens and Humans actually do not have as similar DNA as Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals? What if there is more continuity between Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals and not humans. What if Neanderthals are closer to Homo Sapien DNA and Modern Humans are WAYYYYY different than those two. We assume that because Homo Sapiens are ancestors that we must have similar DNA.

BUT if its actually the case that Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals have similar DNA not necessarily related to Modern Humans, then Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals could have interbred and we wouldn't know the difference because there wouldn't really be a difference of DNA.

This is why answer (C) MUST BE TRUE. It has to necessarily be the case that Homo Sapien DNA and Neanderthal DNA are NOT similar, i.e. is different (and probably more similar to humans). Otherwise, we couldn't conclude that they didn't interbreed.

Hope that makes sense.

The author interprets or actually chooses to ignore "a number" and simply creates the conditional GW, then Criminals. It then assumes Grandville's Planning Committee should NOT have any criminals on it, or the Contrapositive, IF criminals, then NOT GPC. To then conclude that IF GPC, then NOT GW, which then is the Contrapositive of the linked conditional.

GW -> C

C -> /GPC

GW -> /GPC (GPC -> /GW)

The author thinks that its argument is valid (otherwise why make it), but makes two faulty assumptions: One, that "a number" of Granville's wealthiest are criminals actually means ALL of Grandville's wealthiest are criminals (GW -> C). The second faulty assumption is that "Grandville's Planning Committee should ONLY consist of persons with ethics beyond reproach" actually means "Grandville's Planning Committee should ONLY consist of NO criminals."

The problem with this second conditional is not an ethics question about whether criminals do or do not have ethics beyond reproach. Rather, it's missing a conditional that tells us so. Meaning, there is a missing conditional that says: "IF Criminals, then NOT ethics beyond reproach."

I just want to make this clear because had this been a sufficient or necessary assumption question, this non existent conditional would have been a major player. Here, it certainly is a necessary assumption in order for the author to make his conclusion, but it's necessary based on the author ignoring "a number" and simply diving straight into ALL and ONLY conditional language throughout the stimmy.

I think one way to find the correct answer is to contrast (B) and (D). Answer (B) strengthens Papi's argument (pigeons use smell to go home) by showing that when smell is partially blocked, the pigeons partially find their way home (more slowly). In other words, smell causes direction. Less smell, less cause of direction. Answer (D) then sows that when their is no smell (removing the cause) then the affect is removed, too. The smell is removed by transporting them well beyond the range of smell. So taking that as true, that the smell is removed (the cause is removed) then reasonably so the affect of them flying home is removed. Because this is a WKN question, the reasoning used in both (B) and (D) is causal. (D) WKNs by removing the cause and thus removing the affect.

Honestly, for a name like Papi and what he did to those dang birds, I'd kick him while he's down too.

While reading I kept thinking that sooner rather than later the tone of this passage would be "I'm offended."

#HELP

I know that this is sort of a silly assumption, but answer (C) assumes that the fish in the pond either remained constant or actually increased. If there were more fishermen fishing and we had a constant number of fish, then the fish population would probably go down, at the very least have a 1:1 ratio, versus if we had less fisherman perhaps we had a 1:10 ratio. I was so caught up in trying to explain to myself that just because we have a greater number of fishermen does not mean we have a greater number of fish caught. But yes, the "per fisherman" would have helped clear this up, but I don't trust the LSAT to give in that easily. Maybe I'm reasoning this problem as a # to % argument?

Answer D seems to say that the author assumes the relationship is a Mistaken Reversal flaw.

For example: "Those who download music into new creation" is a reference to the conclusion, but now it's made as the sufficient.

"Always" is a necessary indicator.

So, "Those who download music into new creations necessarily must publish their creations on the internet"

I often forget that "Always" means guaranteed or necessarily and mistake it for "All" or "Every" sufficient language.

Should I put any emphasis on the difference between "obligated" and "should"? In LR, "should" is a key component of an argument's main conclusion, and it's often found in causal reasoning or non-conditional reasoning. The difference is that "should" is not "must." Where "obligated" is more like "must." I believe I've seen a few LR questions that conclude with an "obligation" which is a strong main conclusion, much stronger than a suggestion, which makes me believe it is more in the "must" or "always" or "necessary" family.

I say this because answer (A)'s point is "obligation" where answer (B) is "should" or a suggestion.

I dislike this question because it exposes the incredible decline in logical rigor previous LSAT students in earlier tests held as their standard.

Invaluable means valuable...

"Inflammable means flammable? What a country!" - Dr. Nick (The Simpsons)

Let's go!

King Julien!

From my own perspective and experience, but printing off LR pdfs is not very helpful. I am one of those persons that needs to see text on paper, so I understand that the paper approach can seem helpful for a variety of reasons. But when it comes to this, yeah, there are better ways to studying than printing PDFs. Probably the worst approach, honestly.

LeFLOP

But to the question, it depends. Timed, I read the QStem. Blind Review, I read the stimmy.

In BR, the point is to try to bend and flex the argument in any direction you want. So it's not simply about answering the question, but rather using the stimmy to answer many potential questions. For example, RRE, Necessary Assumptions, Weaken, Strengthen, Sufficient Assumption, Descriptive Weakening, Must Be True (MBT conclusions are NA premises), Evaluate, and possibly others, rely on finding an unstated assumption that at times must be true or is true to some degree. So reading the Qstem first is such a small part of the process.

Typed in BR what I thought was an accurate explanation of why B was correct and the others were wrong :) FML.

That Fauci ouchie

Below is my BR analysis. Hopefully it's helpful so forgive my typos and me talking to myself in the text.

I got this question wrong

(Agree)

MOW: K: As population increases, the more land will be used for urban and food production, and less land for wildlife. H: Yes, I agree that population is increasing, and that will increase the need for urban and food production, but don't overlook technology improvements that will increase food production and NOT SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE the PERCENTAGE of the world's land.

Notice that the disagreement might be between the % and # discrepancy. K is also silent on the technology part. So she neither agrees nor disagrees.

Notice that the # to % alludes to the disagreement that technology improvements will cause humans to use less land.

Assumptions: Technology will compensate for land expansion. Agriculture means food production. More agriculture means less land.

Why was the answer choice you made so tempting? (D) Was tempting because it seemed that both K and H agreed that the increase in human population will require an increase in the world's land devoted to agriculture. The reason being is that H says that tech will increase agriculture without SIGNIFICANTLY increasing % of land. So indeed I thought he agreed that land was going to be required, just not to the extent that K perhaps assumes.

Why is it wrong (why don't they agree?) I believe that it's very subtle, but the reason they don't agree has to do with what K's MP. K says that there will be less land for FORESTS AND WILDLIFE not agriculture. In other words, we assume that more agriculture means less land for forests and habitats. Also, we assume that food production means agriculture. But more land for food production could also mean meat factories, etc. Then H comes along and says, "hey don't worry we'll just have more food factories and that will prevent us from significantly increasing the % of land. (D) says that in the next half century, habitats will be eroded. Does H agree? Not necessarily. He's quiet about habitats. Notice how he says we will use less AGRICULTURE. This is us assuming with K that agriculture uses most of the land. That's what H is assuming too. H is assuming that what K is worried that more food production = more agriculture = less habitats. What H says is less agriculture = less land for agriculture, but never explicitly makes the leap from less agriculture to more habitats.

Why is the correct answer not appealing? What made you skip it? For me, this answer is correct via POE. But you have to see the disagreement in (D), and you must see the assumptions made by H about K's argument. But even if you see these assumptions, it's still difficult to pick the right answer. Maybe all answers now seem incorrect. So then I perhaps picked (D) because it seemed to address some of the common issues. With time running out it's easy to throw away my reasoning and the assumptions made and just say "well then that can't be right. Maybe I'm wrong." Yes, you are.

Why was it right? Why did you not notice that part of it? So in (B), H doesn't seem to explicitly agree with this choice. That's what makes this question so difficult, and why (D) is so attractive. But (B) is correct because of the last sentence "would be beneficial." Do K and H think that more efficient and innovative food production would be beneficial? Yes! Both WOULD agree with that. This is like saying S and M want ice cream, but one thinks dairy is problematic and then the other says well you can have creamer. At the end of the day both would agree that they want ice cream. In (B) both would agree that as long as less land is used that would be beneficial.

Great question. I feel exactly the same.