So E. is correct in contrast to the other because it says specifically chem and refers to the past years whereas C refers to current time and "many freshman" does not necessarily mean chem majors who knows maybe chem majors are included in the students who are unsure of their majors or not.

I got this wrong. C is correct because the author makes the mistake of stating that citizens voted that they want to see 40% conservative, 40% liberal, and 20% moderate in the legislature therefore MOST citizen would like to see a 40% liberal 40% conservative 20% legislature which is incorrect. He wrongfully assumed that because citizens voted for a party they want to see in the legislature that this split is what most citizens want the legislature to consist of. This is wrong because if for example 20% voted for sushi, 50% of people voted for pizza, and 30% voted for ramen you CANNOT say therefore that everyone wants the food to consist of 20% sushi, 50% pizza, and 30% ramen because most people who voted for the pizza, sushi, and ramen want what they voted for.

Question 12 - Got incorrect but answer D is correct in that it relies on the reader to be able to distinguish that a license = legal control in which they can enforce a patent rather than just outright suing. Chose C. since I didn't understand the distinction.

Question 6.

Answer A. is correct because it is clear the progression to the second style is a natural progression since he viewed it as "the next inevitable step." From this, we can get rid of B, D, E. The transition to the 3rd style is a natural progression as well - what makes it difficult to see it was natural is that he does not explicitly state it was natural rather, it is up to the readers to make that connection. In the second state, he states he "pushed unstable harmonies until they no longer had any tonal basis," so until they were "nontonal". The third style starts off with this "nontonal music" and introduces the 12-tone technique to stabilize it - thus it is a natural progression from the second since the second style naturally evolved into the 3rd.

Answer C. is incorrect since there is no "inexplicable" explanation there is a natural progression from the second to the third as well since the non tonal music set the stage for the 3rd style that introduced the 12 tone technique to stabilize it.

Question 3

Answer D. is correct because the author inserts the quote to show that there were people in Beethoven's time who viewed his music as "shrill" and "chaotic," and in paragraph two goes on to say that despite this, he is viewed as an "icon" that "but that it didn't happen overnight" implying that it took a while for people to begin to appreciate his music since he was viewed as chaotic by some dramatists. This makes D. correct since Beethoven's music which was alienated at first was not alienated later.

Answer C. is incorrect because the author did not include this to "prove" or "show" that even Beethoven produced uneven quality music because he did not state he believed Beethoven produced this type of music. Rather he draws the implication that some critics belevied a certain way about his music but that later on he became to be seen as a cultural icon for his music. I got this incorrect since I was going too fast and failed to see the implication that the author did not outright say and use this quote to try to state that he agrees that Beethoven composed uneven-quality music like that of Schonberg.

Got this wrong - Chose D. but re reading this it's clear why it's wrong we only know that some authors think lying is permissible in certain situations but the author DOES NOT take a stance about whether it is permissible or not therefore incorrect. Def was going to fast and was thinking of the answer in terms of the journalists and not the author of the stimulus who clearly did not take a stance/opinion on that

I got the correct answer it just took me a while because I didn't realize the first sentence "like a genetic profile" was setting the stage to compare a genetic profile and FMRI. After hearing Kevin's explanation I immediately realized - that when I first read the stimulus I was def going too fast.

These are all so easy and suddenly when you do a timed drill it's so difficult :///

I chose D, which is incorrect after watching the video. It is wrong because it inferred that they said these wild statements for the purpose of enacting fear, but the author never stated that this is the reason for their unfeasible proposals.

A. is incorrect because it incorrectly states that the Tennyson line cannot be construed as an apt description of Darwins theory of evolution. This is incorrect because in the stimulus, the author is misconstrued as a REFERENCE to Darwin's theory of evolution meaning people wrongfully believe it is a reference to that theory it could still be true that it is an apt description of darwins theory of evolution it just cannot in the eyes of the author be a reference to Darwins theory. Two completely different things.

Answer D is correct because in the stimulus the author states that observers are arguing NGO's are decreasing due to an increase in gov't services. The editorialist states this may not be true (that increasing gov't services is causing a decrease in NGOs) and puts forth the possibility that "the latter may indeed cause the former". This is where understanding referentials is insanely important. You must know what the author refers to when he says former and latter. In this instance, the former refers to NGO's and the latter refers to gov't services. Therefore, he is arguing that it could be true that Gov't services may be increasing due to the decrease in volunteerism/NGO's(basically flipping around the original arguement) - and since there is a decrease in the NGO's they may not be providing these services that they did prior so the government has stepped up and provided the services that are no longer provided due to this decrease. Hopefully, that made sense!

If most comes before all, it is valid; if most comes after all, it is invalid.

This makes sense because if you say

Premise: All lawyers are smart people. Most smart people enjoy coffee.

Conclusion: Some lawyers enjoy coffee.

In lawgic:

lawyer --> smart ‑m→ enjoy coffee

From this, you cannot infer that some lawyers enjoy coffee because we don't know how big the set of lawyers and smart people is. It can be that there are 300 lawyers, all of whom are smart, but an overall total of 1,000 smart people - so there is still 700 smart people who could enjoy coffee and 300 who happen to be the lawyers who don't enjoy it. This makes the statement that most smart people enjoy coffee still stand but not the inference that some lawyers enjoy coffee. So, it can be the case that no lawyer at all enjoys coffee. This invalid argument boils down to the idea that we are unsure how big the set for the first two sets is.

An example of this argument in a valid way would be

Premise: Most lawyers are smart people. All smart people enjoy coffee.

Conclusion: Some lawyers enjoy coffee.

In lawgic:

lawyer ‑m→smart→enjoy coffee

From this, you can infer that some lawyers enjoy coffee. This is because we know that over 51% of lawyers are smart and ALL smart people enjoy coffee; therefore, it must be the case that SOME (at least one or all) lawyers do enjoy coffee because most of them (over half of them) fall in the set of being smart, all of whom enjoy coffee.

Hopefully this breaks it down well enough.

Got 3. Wrong - Def have to read the question more carefully next time

Some before all example

Some dogs love kibble. All dogs that love kibble are energetic.

dogs ←s→ love kibble → energetic

therefore we can conclude......

some dogs are energetic

Most before all example

Most people who drink water are healthy. All people who are healthy are athletic.

drink water ‑m→ healthy → athletic

therefore we can conclude...

Most people who drink water are athletic.

Two mosts example

Most students are smart. Most students have planners.

therefore we can conclude....

Some smart students have planners.

Correct me if any of these are incorrect.

cats --> friendly

/friendly --> /cat

Is this the same as

it is not the case that all cats are friendly? meaning there is some cats that are not friendly?

✅ "All" always means 100%.

✅ "Most" guarantees a majority but could be all.

⚠️ "Many" is ambiguous—significant, but not necessarily most.

✅ "Some" guarantees at least one but could be all.

❌ "Few" always means less than half.

all → most → many → some → few

All (100%) → Every single element in the group.

Most (51%-100%) → A majority over half but can be all

Some (1%-100%) → At least one but can be all

All three of these can be written in a context where it can mean "all" but "all" is strictly always ALL 100% no matter the context.

As for "many" and "few," its a bit more confusing for me to explicitly define it is how I defined it below correct? #help

Many → A significant amount but cannot be more than most (can this still mean all?? since the definition says CAN NOT be more than most which is over half? or does this just depend the context as well?)

Few → Some but not many (this is the last one so this is at least one but not more than half? so 1%-50%?)

Good example of why the most arrow can only be one directional

The statement "Most A’s are B’s" is not identical to "Most B’s are A’s" because "most" implies a majority (more than 50%) but does not guarantee symmetry.

Suppose there are 100 A's and 200 B's. If most A's are B's, this means more than 50 of the A's are also B's (say, 80 A's are B's). However, that does not mean that most B's are A's. If there are 200 B's and only 80 of them are A's, then only 40% of B's are A's, which is not "most."

Contrast this to "some" where the arrow can be bidirectional

The statement "Some A's are B's" is identical to "Some B's are A's" because "some" means at least one element belongs to both sets. Unlike "most," "some" does not imply a majority or proportion—just existence.

Why Are They Identical?

If at least one A is a B, that means there exists an element in the intersection of sets A and B.

This automatically means that at least one B is an A, because the same element belongs to both sets.

I think the easiest way to understand this is just using the exception rule; it just makes it more simpler.

Chose E. but after re-reading the stimulus it is clear why it is incorrect. Never did the stimulus mention that her support for the politican is recent it could be the case she has been a fan of the novelist for many years as well just not for as many years as the politician.

One version: If one lives in NYC and didn't file a city tax return, then one must pay a penalty.

Another: If one lives in NYC and didn't pay a penalty, then one must have filed a city tax return.

In this example is there a possiblity that they can pay a penalty AND must have filed a city tax return? Since the or is inclusive?

Is the "or" in the first example inclusive or exclusive? Can both happen? Or can only one happen? In the LSAT do we treat "or" as inclusive ( one or both can happen) or exclusive (only one can happen)

To clarify

/antibodies --> /inf or /1 week

basically means that if you do not have the antibodies than either it you have NOT been infected, it has NOT been one week or BOTH you aren't infected and it has not been one week, correct?

Why incorrect

A. We cannot state that cream that is whipped ineffectively becomes a thick velvety substance it could be the case that cream that has been whipped ineffectively has other errors other than being thick and velvety.

B. Correct - language matches the strength of the stimulus. Author agrees that the special attachment "can help somewhat, but not fully compensate" and the AC states the special attachment "does not suffice to whip cream effectively" good match!

C. "Always" is problematic in the stimulus the author states "can help somewhat" big difference in strength

D. "a special attachment can reduce the total amount of air required to whip cream effectively in that blender" this implies that the special attachment "works" more effectively by reducing the amount of air but the author NEVER says that it works more effectively BY reducing air intake. We just know it works better in general.

E. We don't know anything about how common either method is.

Sufficent Assumption - so we need an answer that will make sure the conclusion is 100% followed

Stimulus summary - Biography of shakespeare does not address what is of most interest about him. Concession point of but it does do a good job of describing how life was like for him. Still it does not address what made him different from all his other contemporaries.

Analysis - We can assume that what the author thinks is of most interest about Shakespeare is what made him different - since he states the biography does not bring up what is most interesting and he ends it with is does not address what made him different. Thus the sufficent assumption that will ensure the conclusion that what is most interesting about him is not addressed will have to clearly state something along the lines of what is most interesting about him is what made him different form everyone else.

AC - E. does this since if it is the case that what made him different from everyone else is what made him most interesting than the conclusion is 100% solidified from the premise.

I think the challenge here is really about making the connection that the first sentence is the conclusion and the last is the premise that supports it - which is a bit difficult with no conclusion indicators. Once you do make this distinction than it is all about finding an AC that strengthens the bridge from the premise to the conclusion which E does.