I would like to join!

I think the phrase "foraging for food" covers the two aspects in one time: foraging = exploring environment, for food = trying new types of food.

I don't think they address the difference between "science-fiction films" and "full-length science-fiction films" in the stimulus...?#help#feedback

I guess Q5 is a SI-type because AC A need us to realize that "the violent reprisals" are to be counted as a subcategory of "harsh realities."

“Typical” appears to me as a unwarranted judgement at first glance. But I think the logic is this:

The manager behavior is not typical does not, as JY said, indicate that the employee behavior is typical. I might well be possible that it is the "manager+employee" behavior being typical.

But in either way, the managerial behavior is not typical.

Notice how AC E qualifies its statement by saying that "cannot be reliably inferred" rather than "cannot be inferred"

I think the magic phrase in this question is "as well".

When people say "I love cats as well," this implies that someone else loves cats, too. In this case, "a belief in extraterrestrials is false as well" indicates that another belief is also false, namely, "a belief in UFOs."

The only premise presented to reach this conclusion is the former sentence: the existence of UFOs has been conclusively refuted." Based on this, we can identify the implicit sub-argument. That is,

the non-existence of UFOs -> the belief in UFOs being false.

Instead of merely assuming that this is common sense that everyone is supposed to know, I think LSAT hides this conditional in the stimulus.

But I still think a question as difficult as this one is INHUMANE.

#help

For answer choice B, I think there is no evidence in the stimulus explicitly saying that the photons and neutrinos were EMITTED simultaneously...? Wouldn't this render answer choice B irrelevant?

For 13, I think "the scientific theory" is the postulation of the mechanism, while "the physical process" is the mechanism itself...?

#help

Agree! I chose C precisely because I thought the author was indifferent. And the explanation "does not sound indifferent" really doesn't help me that much...Does any evidence in the passage clearly indicate that the author is optimistic?

Does the LSAT assume that all of us know that water is H2O? If this is not the case, then the number of molecules has no indication of the amount of oxygen (the structure of the water molecules might be different, that is, they may contain a different number of oxygen atoms). If they assume that we know water is H2O, they are unreasonably mean...

For answer choice B here, I think it is incorrect because the conclusion focuses on the NUMBER of people who quit smoking while B is not.

I wrongly chose D here because of the phrase 'focus on.' Schools' focusing on competitive sports do not indicate that they don't have non-competitive sports...

Hi! Definitely interested! Could you please share the link? Thx!