I shall get a 175+ on my October LSAT (3(/p)

That was my reasoning too! If we consider to duty of patient confidentiality as the relevant duty, then if she doesn't fulfill it, she better have overwhelming evidence that not fulfilling it will lead to disastrous consequences.

However, clearly recurring nightmares that the patient "may" have committed a client, is not overwhelming evidence! So, failing to fulfil her duty of confidentiality is not justified.

#help Lol as a vegetarian I just don't think of a low-protein high fruit / veg diet as a "special diet". I guess the LSAT is culturally biased but that aside, why are we calling this a special diet?

Grammatical analysis of AC (A). We are given 2 comparative statements

Statement 1: Age differential between two trees in the stand

Statement 2: Growth period of white pines to maturity

AC (A) states that statement 1 cannot be much more than statement 2 i.e. the age differential between any two trees in this stand of mature white pines cannot exceed the amount to time it takes for a single white pine to fully grow to maturity. To make the visualization easier, imagine two adjacent trees in the stand. If the age differential between them did exceed the growth period of a tree to maturity, then the fully grown neighbor would block out all the sunlight, prohibiting its poor neighbor from photosynthesising, which is necessary to survival. Hence, the age differential does have to be lower or at most equal to the growth period.

Well the implication is clearly that there was a mindset shift and reformers are strongly pro-conservation. Sure the idea of adherence may be a bit of a stretch, but why is it unreasonable to infer that based on the drastic mindset shift that "environmental interference is now taboo"?

#16 really demonstrates JY's love for cats. Step up from cats like to drink milk.

That was caveated in the last paragraph that the reason plugging nostrils had a negative effect might well be due to the pain/ discomfort caused by the plugs themselves rather than from the impact on olfactory sense. In fact Schmidt and Phillips' experiment weakens the connection between olfactory ability and the map sense

thanks @jknarf513! That helped. I am revisiting this question after a while. AC (E) is absolutely a NA because when negated, it definitely snatches any support that the premise (overland travel super hard) gives to the conclusion (hence hairless dogs were transported by boat).

If the question was a SA question, then I'm not so sure if AC (E) does much.

I've also been out of undergrad for 3 years so I feel you but really, another year is nothing in the grand scheme of things!!! Remember you are still very young with a whole future ahead. Okay, moving on to more LSAT relevant (and less philosophical) stuff, maybe pushing your test to Nov is a good thing but I would make a solid study plan so I know what I am working towards each day. Good luck!

NA: There are some responsible handwriting analysts who claim reliability of such analysis

yeah what is going on with the colors? JY brightening up our screens in addition to our future.

I share your thoughts that the two statements "buying more durable goods" and "they expect economic growth in the near feature” are not entirely independent premises - meaning that one of the two is a sub-conclusion (SC).

However, I think your statements are flipped. "buying more durable goods" is the premise (hence, primary evidence) that supports the SC "they expect economic growth in the near feature”. This is also indicated (no pun intended LOL) by the word "indicating" which links the two statements.

Hence, AC (D) is wrong because the our question stem statement acts as the premise which supports the SC, not the other way around.

hi mate BIG congrats!!! I have been PT-ing mid-160s but got a 159. Retaking in October, so less than a month. Do you have any strategies you can recommend? Taking timed PTs isn't helping. Is there any way of studying more selectively? Thanks and good luck!

I think sometimes is negated to never.

Joe sometimes likes to eat bananas while camping. Negated - Joe never likes to eat bananas while camping.

Catering to national party politics sometimes hurts local interests. Negates to - Catering to national party politics never hurts local interests.

thanks @allgainnobrain that was so helpful!

#help an aside but if this was a MAIN POINT question what would be the conclusion?

"It is clear that psychological factors have taken over this role in us"

Or

"So, pheromones are merely a vestige of our evolutionary past"

#help I picked AC (D) and still don't get why it is incorrect.

The conclusion is prescriptive - i.e. athletes (who want to increase muscle strength) should never consume engineered foods which implies that we need a strong reason to say that athletes should NOT consume these foods. AC (D) provides that strong reason - engineered foods offer vitamins and nutrients (which can obviously be obtained naturally from elsewhere) and don't increase muscle mass - hence, they should not be consumed.

My beef with AC (C) is that while it rules out other benefits of engineered foods, yes, it doesn't get to the disadvantages. So what if there are no substantial benefits but an athlete still likes the taste (using JY's example)? How does lack of substantial benefits imply a prescriptive NEVER CONSUME THIS. (I can almost see a warning label in my head).

Whereas, something being unhealthy is clearly a good reason to stay the hell away from it, especially given that it doesn't serve the purpose of increasing muscle strength. (Think steroids which are also "unhealthy" but at least they do their job in increasing muscle strength.)

I totally missed reading that the SS Coral is a CARGO ship (even during BR)!! Slow down and read every word of the stimulus.

The key to this question is figuring out that it takes a LOT more narrow floorboards to cover up big ass houses for the rich. I didn't get this at the first go but after JY's explanation it is crystal clear.

Honestly don't understand how these consumers, whether individuals or groups (corporates/ govts) can drive up the price. But I think that basic market competitiveness can help a little bit - when consumers are a large, undifferentiated group, they lose bargaining power vis-a-vis the sellers and hence drive up prices.

Picked (E) under timed conditions and changed to (B) in BR because I noticed that AC (B) said that the government began a road repair program - ok but lots of programs may begin and not be completed. Did they actually complete the program to an extent that it improved driving conditions hence reducing traffic fatalities?

Nevertheless, I see JY's point that AC (E) is simply offering a kind of causal mechanism for why the drivers may have become more skillful, hence it can't be a weakening AC and wins over (B).

I think your interpretation is correct that non clinically depressed folks are more likely to engage in social activity that increases FL activity. But exactly! that social activity is that external factor that disproportionately increases FL activity in the non depressed people vis-a-vis the depressed folks.

Recall the 4 possibilities regarding correlation between A & B?

1. A causes B

2. B causes A (this is your reverse causation) - Mapping A to high FL activity and B to low FL activity, I don't see how B causes A applies

3. C causes both A and B - on point in AC (E) because this specific social activity causes A (high FL activity in non depressed people) as well as B (low FL activity in depressed people)

4. No causal relationship

The third possibility feels more applicable, compared to the second one, in AC (E)

Two PTs before Tues (Test Day) and few LG problem sets. Waking up early Tues - down lots of water early in the morn, breathing exercises, short run / jog to get the blood flowing, meditate and eat some fruit. Make sure to keep a water bottle and a small snack (granola bar, nuts, candy, whatever) next to you in case you need to refuel during the break :)

#help why is AC (A) not correct? Forget Spain, lets look in Lat Am say Brazil.

We need it to be the case that hairless dogs didn't exist in Brazil because otherwise, what prevents the possibility that herds of hairless dogs were transported to both Mexico and Peru (at the same time or not, by land or by sea are all irrelevant).

It's almost similar to correlation causation errors where a third factor (in this case presence of hairless dogs in Brazil) is causing both X (presence of hairless dogs in Mexico) and Y (presence of hairless dogs in Peru).

Never mind the manner in which the dogs could have been transported from Mexico to Peru (or vice versa), how do we know that it must be the case that hairless dogs were transported between these two countries? Please help #Brazil

Did anyone else choose AC (B) because of the word recently? If the mandated costs are recent, isn't that weakening the manager's argument regarding the economics of running the nuclear plant - like bro, these costs only came into the picture like a week ago, so what are you saying?

Of course, the fact that the mandated costs came about as a result of pressure from the activist's group makes (B) even more attractive but weakening the manager's argument in the face of the activist's was my primary clue.