Flaw: Divergence of sets

First set is talking about the number of songs on the internet that are "covers" of an original song

Second set is talking about the percentage of internet users who download music publish/don't publish a "cover" of an original song

Flaw: Your argument fails therefore the opposite of your conclusion must be false

You have to remember that "although" is a concession statement and 9/10 it is completely irrelevant to the argument

The stimulus is talking about the existence or non-existence of contemporary artwork and aesthetic fulfillment but the AC (E) is talking about the amount the aesthetic fulfillment that comes from contemporary artwork you can get because of the number and variety of great artwork already out in the world

Ugh in timed and BR, I did not catch that we already knew that phenazines are antibiotic molecules and this did NOT need additional support

The first premise is trying to show the practice of cultivation conceivably changes the size of wild apples over time (i.e. making them bigger). Then we go back 5000 years ago to a time when wild apples were first starting to be cultivated. We would expect potential wild apples sizes to be about the same because nothing has happened to them yet

I like how JY used a "likely" arrow - got to remember to do this. Was having a hard time drawing out the logic without it

Assumption: that uniform targeting would not also help with brand strategy. The right AC (D) is saying that Roadwise would not benefit from this and it therefore strengthens the conclusion because it makes their "variety" approach better or "a smart approach"

Noticing in the newer LSATs, a lot of the harder flaw questions have two flaws and one is tested on

The newer LSATs tests introduce this idea of questioning the credibility of premises (e.g. the instruments you are using to base your premises on suck) and this question is a great example of this

To add to jasmineade, I think our job with weakening questions is to introduce an alternative explanation of the phenomenon we are seeing. It's enough to do just that - the possibility alone that ProBit is sending their service requests somewhere else casts doubt on the support of this argument

Remember with causal weakening questions - all you have to do is introduce any one of the other ways a causal argument could flow (A causes B, B causes A, No relationship, C causes B and/or A)

First assumption, which does not get tested on in this question, is that the words used are actually indicative of mood

Second major assumption is the data tracks a single person's mood throughout the day

Is it uncommon for the test to be out of 102 questions? Have only seen it be out of 100 or 101 before

Just to clarify you mean the Walnut Creek Marriott right?

Taking the exam at Walnut Creek too - any update?

@alexandrabrenza22 Yes it's a pen with a stylus at the end - it's on the smaller side

Yes the scratch paper is 8.5x11

I just don't get this question.... #help

As MichaelScottRegionalManager says below, how come this isn't just A -> B -> C therefore A -> C structure?

------------------------

The only thing that came to mind is there isn't really a causal relationship between reducing the trade deficit and improving the economy. That is, reducing the trade deficit isn't sufficient to improving the economy, so each regulation reducing the trade deficit is not helpful because you can't use the transitive property (A->C). Or am I totally off base with this explanation?

I couldn't see why A was right for Q2, but when I realized that it has to support a larger argument it was easier to see. I think I was going about the question in the opposite way

Is it lined or blank?

Also to add to this question can we bring HB2 pencils to the exam and not use the pen they provide?

The difference between B and D is that promises “never kept” is not the same thing as promises being “unreliable”

Furthermore, what authority do they have to make this claim?

The flaw is beliefs v. facts - the computer experts believe that this is the most significant threat but that doesn't mean it is the most significant threat

C is wrong because it does not address the sufficient assumption and it already says in the stimulus that the vaccine will protect only against the the most prevalent strain so its redundant