?????????WHAT is this question

HOW is success even a factor? We're trying to prove "stylized does not warrant criticism"

So how is C not correct?? It's one of the few cases where a "should" answer would have been correct

Consider the following:

"People criticizing the war documentary for not being funny are misguided. It is certainly true that the war documentary is too serious to be funny. Not being funny could be an issue, but for war documentaries the important thing is to be impactful, which it accomplished by not being funny."

Now which one of the following principles IF VALID makes the most sense??

"War documentaries should strive to be impactful by being serious"

"War documentaries are successful if they succeed within their genre"

IN WHAT WORLD WOULD THE LATTER ANSWER CHOICE BE CORRECT? who gives a FLYING @#)($* if it's successful or not????

For a test that tells us over and over and over again NOT TO JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS!!!! But for this question apparently the correct method was somehow doing a triple cartwheel no hands quad axel on ice longjump polevault into assuming SUCCESS is relevant?????

Who wrote this question? Is this legal? Let's see if you think it's funny after I find you and have a nice talk

Q 18 I can see why E is correct also but I feel like he went wayyyy too quickly by eliminating answer choice B. He also eliminated it for the wrong reason. The reason he eliminated it was the reason why answer B would be correct. The author DOESN'T have an issue with cultural borrowing; the Pan-Indianism proponents do.

The author literally criticizes the proponents of PanInd for wrongly assuming intercultural exchange = bad in the 3rd paragraph.

I ruled out E both times because it implies that the author agrees with Pan-Indianism to some extent, but doesn't the author straight up dismiss Pan-Indianism to be an invalid theory because it's based on incorrect assumptions?

I guess I can see why B is wrong in that perhaps you can argue proponents of Pan-Indianism don't necessarily negatively characterize cultural borrowing, but rather the author makes them seem like they do. Or you can say that the author isn't necessarily uncomfortable with their characterization, the author just says the native Americans themselves are.

E also does have the last sentence of paragraph 2 to affirm it. But still, to me I can't let go of the fact that the entirety of paragraph 3 really seems to support B better.

I would really appreciate it if someone could help and show me why I'm wrong. This is the question I spent the longest on and picked the same both for initial and blind review. I got every other question correct in the end in this RC section... this one still ticks me off.

https://i.imgur.com/kH2Smt2.jpeg

https://i.imgur.com/oE8CdFG.png

https://i.imgur.com/DRRHuAe.png

this one as my entry

What about a study group for people 5'7 and higher? It would be nice if the people above average human height worldwide could have a space to study together.

Are memes limited to images? what about gifs or videos?

Thanks everyone and my fellow memers 🙏🙏even if I bomb the lsat I will look back upon this moment as one of the highlights of my life .

I chose C because it said it would result only in that... does that not essentially mean that nothing else would come out of it? Which includes the consumers being supposedly more aware, which is the intended point of the conclusion? I couldn't imagine notifying the consumers to be sending out individuals to the consumers and telling them in person "hey so those are the consequences of the drugs". I would imagine it to be something like extra printed info on the packaging or maybe some advertisement.

I took the answer to say that it would ONLY decrease price meaning that the consumers would not become more aware than before either. I guess it's a fundamental error in how I read that sentence. damn.

This one tripped me up. I selected B at first but then I had time at the end and came back, really stared at it, and proceeded to confidently change my answer to D.

For those that fail to see why that's wrong, consider the following:

"Men cannot drink orange juice. Drinking orange juice implies you are nice. Men are not nice."

Now in this scenario, "Men cannot drink orange juice" is this general conclusion equivalent in the trap answer. It should be pretty clear that "Men are not nice" is not an instance of that.

The way the question is worded can be pretty confusing though, I somehow convinced myself that it was an instance of the general conclusion.

My main issue for this passage is that I couldn't figure out whether author of Passage A was for judicial honesty or not. It seemed like all they did was list the other legal theorist's opinions, and then bring up 2 possible ways of defending, and then take issue with the first way.

I don't understand how taking issue with a method because of its flaws means that you agree with the conclusion of the method; shouldn't it just be that you acknowledge there's an issue?

I think another point of confusion in what side the author of passage A was that they never even really addressed the "Some legal theorists" reasoning. All they did was say "because of flaws with this defense, we can take a look at this defense" But that does nothing to tell me if they agree with it.

I guess in hindsight I should have just assumed that they had a side, or else some questions become impossible to answer if the author has no side and really is impartial. But still

Not in NYC but in same time zone, can do virtual meetings over disc/zoom!

I seriously dislike this question. I still don't see how C doesn't require some massive jumps in assumption.

1. It requires the assumption that "strong incentive" somehow equals to the fact that most DO provide energy-efficient appliances for their tenants. Why? Since when is making a jump like that allowed or even encouraged in the LSAT for correct answer choices?

2. This is the biggest one. The explanation requires us to assume that with the electricity meters installed, the energy-efficient appliances that the tenants supposedly had (that we have to assume from assumption no.1 ) are no longer present.

What?

Are these energy-efficient appliances objects with transient properties whose existence in tenant dwellings constantly depend on whether or not landlords have a "strong incentive" to provide them? Are we supposed to assume that when landlords are no longer strongly incentivized, these energy-efficient appliances naturally disappear into thin air or something? Or they're magically replaced with non-efficient appliances? Or the landlords, upon installing the electricity meter, go through the trouble of switching out all the energy-efficient appliances (A.C., lights, fan coils, washing machines, dishwashers, blah blah whatever etc...) in their tenant's place? How is this even remotely a reasonable assumption to make? I'm feeling extremely violent.

And only now after making those two olympic-level jumps, are we open to the possibility that energy may not be conserved. Why? Because uhhh the tenants will umm use more energy with non-efficient appliances than energy-efficient appliances. This is ANOTHER assumption required. How do we even know this? What's to say that in this hypothetical scenario, the tenants become so financially incentivized to not paying more that they use so little electricity from before that even LESS energy is used than when they were using energy-efficient appliances? NOWHERE does it tell us just how much more energy-efficient those energy-efficient appliances really are. So really we have to make a triple backflip jump in assumption to get here. Great. Sure. I love the LSAT.

--

I picked A, and although it's by no means perfect or great, I feel like it requires much less jumps in assumption and just makes more sense to me.

A implies that tenants who are responsible for their own bills because of the meter will be paying less rent. Now the only assumption is this:

the difference between their all-inclusive rent and their new rent sans electricity COULD be equal/greater than what their typical e-bill would be.

that's literally all that is required. now the "financial incentive" part of the stimulus has been attacked, which it hinges on for their conclusion. Who knows, energy may not be conserved, since the tenants are paying less than they originally did anyways. Idk, this just seems a lot less of a reach to me. Still a reach, but less than what C requires.

I think I typed up an essay here. I'm know I'm wrong because I got the question wrong. But I still don't really see it. I typed this all up because I am coping and upset.

August and also interested

I don't like the explanation for Question 16. I originally picked the right answer (A), but then went back and changed it to C.

The explanation given for A is the same one given to deny C. You don't GET A from the passage; you get it from what you can reasonably infer based on the passage. Yet C is eliminated for the exact same reason.

I picked C because the passage mentioned that there are clear exceptions such as Height, that cannot be improved upon with training. And since "human endeavor" is SUCH a broad category, I thought it would be reasonable to think that there are certain categories, lets say, an endeavor of "Reading-a-book-once-and-being-able-to-recall-every-single-word". And unless you're born with photographic memory, this would not be possible.

And all it would really require is one such field to satisfy "some" human endeavors, and they never even really specify what doesn't count as human endeavor.

I can see now why A is better, but rather than the explanation that is given in the video I think it makes more sense to see that it's more "safe", in a sense. It says "..would be difficult, or perhaps impossible". This requirement is easier to satisfy.

The reason I switched off from answer choice A is that in paragraph 2 it explicitly says that it can detect whether something is innate or from training by seeing how said person would perform in other areas not relating to said field. In that case I thought it would be straightforward to see if something is from innate talent or from training.

Does the piano prodigy have perfect pitch or is it trained relative pitch? That would be easy to test; just play them different notes from different instruments.

Is the math genius a genius because their brain is just so much better wired than the average person? I feel like this would also be straightforward to test. Just test how they react to categories outside of math.

Upon further reflection, I realize that it certainly would not be easy, and rather difficult, as there are too many factors going into being good at something. Tennis for example, how would you determine if a player is good innately because they were born with fast reaction speed, naturally fast legs/footwork, or is it rather they have a naturally strong swing? What if they were naturally born with a disposition to react faster to the green of tennis balls? What if some of those come from training, and another is natural-born? In cases like this, I concede that it definitely would be difficult to ascertain whether or not someone has innate talent when they've already had exceptional training. There's simply too many things to account for, which would make determining difficult.