@tedwards192 said:

Hi, based on your above schedule, you all should have BR PT 91 yesterday(1/11). If so, I could use some clarity on Game 2 from section 3.

Sorry I missed your message. If this still is helpful, here's my board and setup

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HEXwnyxWxXTQGuOwjnmUfnS6s78RQQPQ/view?usp=sharing

#help Anybody else also feel this is a principle question?

Hi! I know the Jan and Feb test are kinda close so thought a Jan group might work for you too. Wanting to see if you're interested in joining this one https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/31303/jan-2022-study-group-aiming-for-170

I disagree. I don't think D is attacking the premise. The premise is about the current state, which is "we're using a small fraction of the supply". And D is addressing a future possibility. The conditional language almost makes it a thought experiment.

I think the reason why D is wrong still lays on "eventually", which is different from "in the near future".

#help Is "the doctrine relies excessively on jurors' objectivity" our conclusion? Was talking to a friend about this Q and he says that's the conclusion. But I feel the author's conclusion is unstated.

I read it as "Proponents argue that this practice is legitimate because it helps shield against injustice. But (inserting the unstated/hinted conclusion of the author) they're wrong: because the doctrine relies excessively on jurors' objectivity..... etc"

Am I looking at it correctly? Thanks!

Man, I was thinking exactly the same thing! I eliminated D because I thought "new technologies that contribute to saving lives" are separate things from "medical applications".

Yes it's gone. Please help fix it admin~ thanks!

#help Can someone explain why B is absolutely wrong?

I see that there're two parts of the conclusion: 1. Crows are capable of recognizing threatening people. 2. Crows can pass that information to their peers (which I wasn't able to pay attention to when I was doing this question).

So I was thinking there're two required assumptions for this conclusion: 1. The actions crows took are indeed actions towards threats -- And I thought answer B plugged that hole. 2. Somehow the crows passed threatening info to their peers -- and A plugged that hole.

When you negate B (crows that perceive an individual as threatening don't always respond by shrieking and dive-bombing), I thought it makes the "premise" less relevant to the conclusion part of "crows are capable of recognizing threatening people", thus weakens it.

Anyone can help me look at this differently? Thanks!

Asked the same question on Reddit and here's a response that persuaded me. In case any of you also struggle with understanding D. Credit to @TestTrainer. Post url www.reddit.com/r/LSAT/comments/kc6yfz/need_help_for_pt69_passage_3_q21_answer_d_why_is/gfpph20/

"I don’t think you’re wrong. But I am going to play devils advocate.

Aside from the fact that the question states that you are supposed to assume the truth of each choice: (D) doesn’t make a huge assumption that’s out of the scope of common sense. In fact, (D) is considered gospel truth by American attorneys. And the LSAT isn’t a pure logic test - it’s an American law school entrance exam.

That being said, I do agree that the author of passage B seems to not care at all about profits. Only innovation. But again, the American law school entrance exam raises its ugly head. It’s always about profits. And from a technically legal standpoint (which you should have absolutely no idea about until you actually go to law school), any “corporate statement” is legally required to consider profits in everything it does. Incorporation entails certain legal duties. This includes maximizing profits as long as doing so is legal and reasonable.

But whatever. You’re not wrong."

Does anybody else feel we should dispute #21 making a huge assumption that's out of the scope of common sense? Haha

I eliminated D pretty firmly thinking this assumption of "profit motivates innovation" is totally too much and deemed answer choice D as irrelevant.

Being someone who works in the software industry, I'm even slightly pissed by this assumption haha. Many people create and discover new things for "problem-solving". It's in their blood, it's in their choice for the profession and it's in their day-to-day work. Sure, $$ will come if you have a patent, but the innovators mostly just do it because of their passion and love for the thing they're working on.

I'm just really having a hard time buying the idea that D is right 🙁

I also got tripped by the part after "More importantly, the primary.....". But eventually, I came to a bit of a different understanding from JY.

I saw "make contingency-fee agreements available only to the least well-off clients would be unfair to other clients" as the conclusion. Then, premise #1: richer people sometimes can't liquidate their assets to pay; premise #2: the reason to go into contingency-fee agreement applies to all people (indicating that you shouldn't rule out mid-income or well-off people from this option).

Thank you so much James for hosting these sessions!

"Clearly LSAT writers are way more hip than I am" cracks me up lol

You're so funny J.Y.!

Wow, how funny everyone's so different!

I didn't get a chance to read this passage in the timed test. But I got every question right in BR and struggled so badly with the previous passage about cultures being influenced....