thank you!

bro scores 190 on the lsat

thank you for sharing this! it really helped me.

Note to self: you cannot rely on the rules of conditionals when there aren’t any!!!!

But doesn't 11E negate the premise? (which is bad way to weaken an argument)

Is 'independent of original function' necessary or sufficient for sophisticated music? if it's sufficient, then D could be compatible.

Ind → S

the only incompatible statement from a conditional relationship is the case in which we have 'Ind' and not 'S'.

Having 'S' and not 'Ind' would not be incompatible.

If it's necessary, it may be incompatible but the stimulus does not make clear whether 'independent of function' is necessary for sophisticated.

The explanation does not make reference to this. I would appreciate any #help

Thanks a lot!

Pretend that D says "95 of dna samples match those taken from any turtle in the world," meaning, your 95% match is not relevant.

Why did this question made me nauseous?

I don't think answer choice 18B is given enough consideration. There is a negative characterization of cultural borrowing in lines 35-40. Advocates of pan-indianism say that cultural borrowing results in assimilation and loss of original culture. This is pretty negative. The author states that this is unsupported, and he opposes this view across the passage, including the intro.

also, the word 'skeptical' used in answer choice E is way too soft.

I appreciate any #help

Thanks!

There is a negative characterization of cultural borrowing in lines 35-40. Advocates of pan-indianism say that cultural borrowing results in assimilation and loss of original culture. This is pretty negative.

Mmm... I wish question 13 was explained more in depth. I don't see how 'origins of a situation are examined'. What situation? nonpoetic emphasis? what are the origins? if it said chronology, i would go for it. But origins suggest going back to moment 1, the birth of something. The passage shows the intellectual emphasis of a movement, but not its origins. #help

same

Same here.

I initially could not distinguish between B and C, because they both deal with the sample-population issue.

However, C tells us that samples are not representative of the population. [because participants with good results are overrepresented in the sample.]

B tells us that samples are not equally numerous.

Very important distinction. We don't care about 'numerous' because proportions control for different sample sizes.

You could always just negate D, but in my case, I was reluctant to move on unless I understood the argument structure of the stimulus. It's good practice.

Oh, I have an interesting way to think about this, in case it's helpful to anyone.

V ^ F > C [some correlation between Comedic acts and Failing to live up to Valuable ideals]

R > V [some correlation between Respect and high esteemed Value]

??? [missing premise]

-----------------------

C

We need F to trigger V ^ F, i.e., we need to know that people fail to live up to standards they value.

This took a lot of organizing and translation!

Wowwwww, I came back to this explanation 3 months after, to give it a second chance, and NOW I GET IT. Sometimes, letting a question sit for a while helps!!!

This is what clicked for me, in case it's helpful to anyone:

What's important of answer choice D is the "more prone to injuries" part. It may be helpful to re-write this answer choice in dif ways, but meeting the same function, so let's do it:

Original answer choice: "The more prone a jogger is to jogging injuries, the more likely he or she is to develop the habit of performing stretches before jogging."

Easier, more intuitive versions of it:

"the first group is more prone to injuries." [that would do it, right?]

"the second group is amateur and therefore their training is less intense or less competitive"

"the first group are all 65 years old or older."

"the second group trains in a safer environment", etc.

the important thing is that individuals from the first group all suffer more injuries to begin with.

Agree completely. Stating that something is a "tempting mystery" does not guarantee an attempt in the future to unveil it. I can imagine J.Y.'s rejecting an answer choice for the same reason.

I have the same question.

I guess what confused me here is that I took the premise "Even an adm that fails to protect environment may still be an overall success" to be a restatement of the first premise, or a principle premise, while in fact it was a fact premise. In other words, I thought that protecting individual liberties can now be sufficient on its own to trigger overall success.

After careful thought, this is what I could come up with:

I did not choose D because I did not take it to be true. It's as if, while answering this question, I decided that answer choice D could not be true_. But this is not an MSS question or an MBT question. For this particular task (or stem), I must assume the answer choice is true.

In other words, instead of thinking "if D, then... what?", I thought "can D be?", which is not the task at stake._

But the passage never states what is the limit of the pidgeons ' detectable range'. As far as we know, pidgeons could always detect smells via mapping, regardless of distance.

Can someone please explain me how am I supposed to do all of this in 1.5 minute?

But option C does not engage with the argument. It just brings up a new point. We are taught consistently across the CC to not fall for answer that disregard the premises. In this case, the nitrogen is an important part of the argument, and C does not engage with nitrogen , it just brings a whole different point. D engages with the argument. #help

Many thanks to Professor Omar, from my geology 101.

I somehow understood the passage perfectly and yet managed to get -3 in it