This is still going on? Sign me up.

I notice with comparative passages. The questions usually focus on passage B than passage A.

I never inferred why they used children instead of adults in the study. Is this the type of thinking that we have to do while reading under a timed exam?

LSAT loves precise language. I thought the word games (line 54-55) was the same as grammar and idiomatic uses (answer choice D - question 13). They are not the same thing.

i think it captures the spirit of the passage. It fails because the passage is about at-risk indigenous languages and not about language preservation in general and we don't know what makes language preservation MOST successful.

i cancelled my Jan test for June. Let's do this.

What an achievement! Congratulations :)

The subject after "the only" is (place she can buy guava juice). The predicate is (the local health food store).

Group 1 indicator rule:

BGJ → LHFS

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/clarification-for-the-only/

Hopefully this is helpful.

I'm tired too but dammit I want a good score. LOL

I am interested.

I didn't either. What helped me with these type of questions is to try and understand the stimulus and the first thing you look for in the answer choices is a similar match in the conclusion. This allowed me to get rid of C, D, and E. Then go for the premise: A sucked. B is the leftover answer. I even marked this question for blind review and my thinking was the same.

Watching this video because I didn't know what the flaw is.

Exactly, the wording on the LSAT is very much butt crack. But in this question, the other 4 answers doesn't even touch the argument.

A is trying to weaken the context.

C is to weak. some chemical substances impair memory. Are they talking about ginkgo? Too vague of a statement to do anything.

D so Scientist don't know for sure what the substances in ginkgo are that reduce stress in mice. And? Just because they can't find it doesn't mean that its not in existence and responsible for the impact. Tell them to harder.

E. so the ginkgo eating mice took just as long to navigate their way around the maze. But the second sentence in the stimulus says that they were more likely to remember. so the normal diet eating mice spent 15 minutes walking in circles while the ginkgo eating mice took 15 minutes to remember how to navigate. This choice isn't even addressing the author's argument! To hit the bull's eye, you don't aim at the floor. A and E are doing just that.

author said that the ginkgo extract alone may not have helped memory and to prove it, cited studies that showed that ginkgo reduces stress in mice. This reduced stress in turn improves memory.

But who said the mice were stressed for the ginkgo to have such an effect? For the argument to be sound, you have to assume that the mice were stressed and it was the ginkgo that "de-stressed" the mice and that helped with memory.

to weaken the argument, find an answer that says the mice were calm and cool. lol

B does that. The mice in the experiment AND the mice in the studies (that the author introduced) were fine. Blows his assumptions out of the water.

I had the same issue you did. I should have skipped this question during timed because trying to figure out that first sentence confused me. Was this argument going to be about causation?

But the point is, the statement is that some (keyword here and I am learning that terms like this are a big deal on the LSAT) by-products cause EHA. There is a causation, but knowing what some means, at least one, doesn't necessarily mean all by-products cause EHA. There could be 600 by-products in existence, yet only two types of by-products cause EHA.

The next statement says that abnormal development occurs only with EHA. This is a conditional statement.

The next statement (premise) says that several alligators in a swamp has abnormal developments. Well, what can we infer? Based on the conditional statement, they must have EHA. but the author doesn't say that. She says that it was the by-products.

How can we go from some by-products cause EHA to the author assuming that ALL and any by-products cause EHA? Where did she state this? She didn't clarify that, and since its left up to us to try and figure out if that is the case that all by-products cause EHA, that's the flaw.

The error the author makes is that he doesn't specify if what was discovered in the alligators (abnormal development) was caused by by-products. What if there was pollution and caused a virus that gave rise for the abnormality? We aren't 100% certain that the some by-products (that DO cause EHA) were in the swamp.

Hope that makes sense.

check out the premise. several alligators with abnormalities were found in a swamp. Meaning one swamp.

The author then concludes that by-products have entered (note the referential phrasing here) the swamp.

For E to be correct, the argument would have to say

several alligators with developmental abnormalities were found in a swamp, therefore alligators in swamps are affected by by-products.

Look how general the conclusion is in this example.

Is this a real flaw or are they just making things up to create a question?

I'm reading all the comments and the so called flaw still doesn't make sense to me. What is the flaw? #help

Are you just not fatigued by the time you hit the end of the section? Perhaps developing more endurance will help.

I eliminated A because i didn't like the prescriptive "should" in the answer when the author didn't allude to what one should do. It didn't dawn on my that there could be other options that are least expensive. The passage sure didn't infer that these were the two only options. I can see on a harder question, this assumption would be tested and I probably would have gotten it wrong.

OK. Reading the stimulus again, It appears that of the survey respondents:

40% said they want to see the conservatives in the legislature

20% said they want to see moderates in the legislature

40% said they want to see liberals in the legislature.

We have no clue if there are any overlaps in the legislature between parties.

The author then concludes that if the results above are reliable, then most citizens want to see each of the above responses as part of the legislature. But for all we know, the 40% who wants to see conservatives could have wanted 100% of conservatives in the legislature. We can't conclude based on the preferences of some people that most would like all the preferences, listed above, combined in one.

Maybe I am being too literal, but I felt there was a difference between the respondents of the survey (who they are are mysterious) and most citizens, I figured was members of a country. C didn't accurately describe these two groups for me and thats why eliminated.

I am curious to see an example of what an argument would look like for E to be the correct answer.

If you focus on the conclusion, its quite obvious why A is wrong.

The conclusion is saying that the ban on fishing is what explains the rebound in fish population for Q lake. But is the ban really the cause? What if there was another reason for why the fish did not continue to decline.

See, this has nothing to do with H lake. B describes it right. If no one really fished before, what was the ban supposed to do? B is correct.

who was at the door? lol

@sjohansen1952593 said:

@fincobb497 said:

It's definitely not perfect but the ideas are actually very interesting and it's a bold subject... insider non-trading is super interesting and original. I don't think I've ever heard someone give that perspective, or even point out that it's a potential problem. You would probably enjoy thinking about vaccine hesitancy through the same lens... applying a vaccine being the "active" and neglecting a vaccine being "passive," and the weight-on-conscience of each option in the case of a bad/good outcome. I think it's true that acting and having a bad outcome feels worse than neglecting to do something and having a bad outcome... it's all interesting. Thanks for sharing!

I was not asking for advice, as I have already applied in a previous cycle :) Good luck with your apps if you have any pending!

They were just sharing their thoughts. Which I presume was the intent of this post.

I go in a totally different mindset during a timed exam. I couldn't figure out if there is a connection of global warming and higher temperatures. Thus, I wasn't able to make an inference from the last sentence and the rest of the stimulus.

note: if you don't understand the stimulus, don't bother answering the question (or wasting time on the question).