I actually don't know if you can even infer the Miranda thinks that few people want to sit outside while they eat at restaurants on 10th street. She just said that one that doesn't have indoor seating is likely to fail. Maybe 90% of people want to sit outside but restaurants should also accommodate the minority who wants to be inside?

This is another example of how the LSAT tries to bait us with vague answers that play on the train of thought we (I) already have going in our head. I got this incorrect timed but see much more clearly how the LSAT writers were just playing me :(

I was confused by E as well and thought that "pumping costs increase with distance the water is pumped" act as a premise to the "greatest expense" claim. But the pumping costs could have the smallest cost and increase 1 cent, starting from 1 cent whereas everything else that goes into irrigation costs $10. Even though the pumping costs increase, that alone doesn't tell us that it is the greatest expense. We would need something as a comparison such as while all other costs are fixed costs, the pumping of water greatly increases with the distance pumped.

It's cheaper to build a house with only a brick exterior than a fully brick filled house. The greatest expense in building a house is laying the bricks down and the cost of buying bricks actually increases with each new brick you buy. (But bricks only start at 2 cents where as labor, time, other materials, trucks to transport etc all cost significantly more).

The fact that the cost of bricks goes up doesn't prove that the greatest expense is laying down the bricks. the It's just another reason why we shouldn't have a fully bricked house.

You can also switch up which you make sufficient/apply the unless statement to and still get the same answer JY did. Habeas Porpoise below presented a really good answer to this, i just wanted to add:

The way i read the principle in A was -- (if a claim is extra-ordinary, it should be presented critically) unless it's backed by a high standard of evidence. I negated high standard to make that sufficient and then my argument looked like this: high standard → (extraordinary → critical) which also looks like high standard and extraordinary → critical.

#helpCould someone explain a little more what it would look like to speculate on the future of grand theories? Because the answer choice doesn't refer to any specific theory within the group (such as Freudianism or Marxism) but to the group of grand theories as a whole. Is it that the stimulus is talking about grand theories at present "in recent years" and doesn't say that in the future we will return to using grand theories or they should be abandoned forever? Because the author does say that we've given up hope on determinism of the theories so it seems to suggest the demise of the theories?

C just seemed to be a more complete answer because it included the idea of historical contingency. But I am having difficulty in definitively rejecting D.

#help I eliminated D because I didn't think it was necessarily challenging the consensus view. I thought it was more expanding upon the view. The original astronomers aren't wrong in thinking that pulsars are spinning balls of neurons but pulsars could also be filled with positively charged quarks that attract a crust of neurons. I saw it as more an expanded view than a challenge per say.

Can't we also eliminate E because it doesn't address which age group. What if the voting rate among the older generations goes down but the rate for the younger group stays the same? The younger group could comparatively not be disconnected or could still be just as disconnected when looking at their rates alone. We want to assume the answer choice is referring to the rates for the younger groups but E isn't specific enough.

This thread offers some helpful advice on retaking old pretests. https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/6692

I actually thought that what was wrong with this was that the the study found that group 1 exercised more than group 2. So the avg in group 1 could have exercised the same amount but the avg in group 2 could have exercised far less now which makes it so that group 1 exercises more compared to group 2 but they don't actually exercise more. But that sort of flaw/weakener wasn't represented so it made things harder to spot. But I eliminated C because the answer choice doesn't tell which group these people are in so you don't have enough to label this a weakener.

The only thing I didn't like about D was that it seemed to suggest that keeping the dunnart warm was the same as regulating body temperature but D is so clearly the right answer/the only answer that gets to both body temperature and water retention that it has to be the right answer.

I figured "needs" encompasses "educational needs." So if M is saying that the university satisfies my needs, (for a Q4), I didn't think it was that much of a stretch to extrapolate that M would say that educational needs fit into the wider "needs" category. But I also agree with Super Saiyan where because this doesn't say what "must be true" or what can be inferred, I think this gives us a bit more leeway.

I think that B is incorrect even if you misinterpret "manufacture" (as I had done). I incorrectly assumed that the question was asking if the signs would be more expensive for the city. Even with this reading of the question, the answer choice is incorrect because it ignores the "time" aspect of the stimulus.

If you answer no, the signs won't cost the city more, it still could be a colossal waste of time because it's just such a tedious, painstaking process to replace and even if the signs were free, it wouldn't be worth the hassle.

But with C, if the city replaces all of its signs every year as part of its routine maintenance then this replacement won't really be a waste of time or money because it is something you would have to do regardless.

same amount of weight = same average fuel mileage

our hamster eating more = X driving in a less fuel efficient manner

If you eat more but gain the same amount of weight, it can be reasonably inferred that you are burning more calories which is why you're not gaining more weight than the hamster that ate less.

This answer can also be answered via process of elimination: A, C and D don't have something that is the same between the two being compared:

A) "lower pain ratings"

C) "better time"

D) "lower estimates"

All of these should have been the same pain ratings, same time, same estimate but despite that, one was lower/higher in another factor that should have effected the rating/time/estimate. But that's not the case in any of these answer choices.

E) There's no similar comparison here. It should have read something like Jean demonstrates as a high a level of visual acuity when she wears prescription glasses as when she doesn't even though X so it must be that wearing prescription glasses actually doesn't help her. or something like that.

Can we also eliminate C because it doesn't necessarily "assume [the first sentence] to be true." The stimulus says "probably" so I eliminated C because of that as well. #help

I incorrectly chose D but I see now that wolves is just one example of predators. Even if the wolves population went down, they could represent only a small fraction of deer predators while other predators saw a significant increase. Also, we just don't know if the wolves raised in captivity lessened the threat of the wolves. Wolves were named as "natural predators" of deer so for all we know, their upbringing could have absolutely no effect on their innate ability/desire to hunt deer.

For A) sman5454 correctly refers to "adversely" and "most" as specific words used to indicate a once detrimental impact that no longer has any effect. None of the other answer choices is uses as strong language.

Hi, that's precisely why the answer would be D in #9. The author is giving more support. In B, to qualify something, is to make it more conditional/less absolute. So Paragraph 3 would have to say something about how the artist wasn't narcissistic in all settings or something like that. The author is giving us different examples from Allen's career about how he uses "peevish" characters who are artists but the author could qualify that statement with an example of one character who was an artist who wasn't so sour and was an artists. (An easier example of a qualified statement would be: I like all fruits, except apples.) Sorry if this is disjointed but I hope it gives you some clarity!

#help: for Q10: would you say that neurotic and narcissistic described Harry but can't necessarily be said to be representative of all the characters? However, in a few lines below, the author says that the producer in Stardust was the sourest before Harry. That is more an indication that "sour" is a trait possessed by all/most/more than one of Allen's characters. However, neurosis was just attributed to Harry?

This was exactly my thinking. But what I've had to come to terms with is that no answer is perfect and it's more a matter of which is better than the rest. For me, I was down between C and D as the most tempting choices. But C is wrong because Activite is only claimed to be "effective." It doesn't need to be "fully effective" as C suggests.

As for D; I assumed (upon review during BR), that they already have this product made. Now it's about selling it. So either they lose $500 if no one buys it or they lose only $410. So it's still better for them to offer this deal so as to minimize their losses.

I initially chose C bc I thought that the government has to "ensure" that F's citizen's have majority ownership. Whether they are too stupid or not to determine if that is the case still puts the requirement on them to ensure that they will have ownership. So upon review, for me, C was only wrong because you can't determine that ONE OF the highest bids was in fact THE highest bid.

So I actually decided to take one in PA near where my sister lives and make it a mini getaway from the city. But glad you were off the waitlist!

During my timed practice, I just looked for the answer choices that followed the "some, all, some" pattern. Only B and E had this and E didn't have "all" in the correct place.

Yes, that is why I eliminated it too, because of the "all." And not even all kodiak bear behavior, specifically its behavior as it relates to walking on hind legs.

The only thing that made me hesitate with A for a split second was "personal flaws" since the stimulus just mentions flaws in general. But A is clearly the assumption the author makes so I guess not all answers can be 100% perfect.

I thought of budget as a "new term" so looked for answer choices that included the word budget, that left me with D and E. The budget is a sufficient statement so eliminate E and that leaves you with D.

Just an aside about A)-- The stimulus refers to "many" and "more" but never alludes to anything that would justify a "most."

#helpQ9: I thought that by the stimulus saying in paragraph 1 that "too little attention" is given to the study of statutory law, that means that it is currently being studied, just not enough. So I thought that in C saying that they should provide training in statutory law, that wasn't necessarily correct because they technically already are. I originally chose E. I can now see how the second half of E goes too far. This feels more like a case of which is least bad to me.

That's really good to know! It definitely settles my nerves a bit more! Thank you :)