I do not like any of these AC's but I also lowkey interpreted AC (D) like a phenomenon that happened after the change was implemented:

Say, before the change, the average number of teenage car accidents was 100 per year. 50 of those in the morning, 50 of those in the evening. Because there is no reason to assume that teenagers only drove as a means to get to school.

After the change, the overall accidents decreased to 60 per year. Now, it was 10 in the morning, 50 in the evening.

*To my understanding, "many" means "many more" rather than "some" in this context because of the "rather than."

I know the numbers are arbitrary and this interpretation requires a number of assumptions (such as, what if the original numbers of accidents were 30 in the morning and 70 in the evening, then after the change it was 30 in the morning and 0 in the evening and the overall number thus declines? this undermines the argument), but idk, AC (E) seems like it requires just as many assumptions to make valid...:-)

@MK2323 Doesn't matter if people or teenagers get sleepy at night (which, might I add, is a personal assumption that wasn't stated in the stimulus). The argument is that Granville HS pushing their starting time back to 8:30 has contributed to the decline in the # of teenage car accidents.

AC (C) does make sense but it also requires you to know or infer that the virus will be passed down in the same location. And I used to think I simply won't be able to get this sort of questions right ("how the f am I supposed to know?!"), but I'm slowly getting the subtle hints and traps the LSAT writers make that I'm more capable of picking the right answer choice.

With this question specifically, AC (A) and (C) seem like what most people had narrowed down to. As mentioned above, picking (C) without outside knowledge can feel super uncomfortable; however, I can now kind of see how (A) is a typical trap answer choice. It sounds attractive and relevant, but if deciphered correctly, you can also realize that it isn't relevant. You have to think about what is the core substance of the author's argument. The author thinks hepadnavirus is at least as old as the mentioned species' divergence based on the fact that it is present in the same location for each species. So you need to look for an AC that adds to such premise and therefore strengthens the argument. If boiled down to that, I think it is much easier to spot the best AC.

Took a quick look at the ACs and made the erroneous judgement that (A) pointed to a local involvement (I think the last sentence stating "local involvement AT ALL LEVELS" made it even trickier to identify/remember that the 'local involvement' the author discussed in the passage was aspects like local manufacturing, production, etc.) and that (B) pointed to an example of foreign involvement.

Not sure how to avoid this type of mistake next time, definitely seems like one of those questions I only realize I had chosen the wrong answer after the answer is revealed...

I thought this was a MBF question oops :')

must. read. every. word. of. the. answer. you. choose.

@tsandin I agree! But I guess if you read further into the passage it doesn't say 'glass flowing downwards' itself is a myth but that glass flowing downwards is the reason that windows are ripply in old buildings.

Oooooops

15/15 on blind review a win is a win :')

@tortellinibrain It's like, sometimes you have to scrutinize the wording super carefully, and sometimes you just can't overthink. :P

I was confused because the question asked for an essential characteristic of Western ontology, and I read the part of the passage like it was specifically talking A Western ontology of many Western ontologies, I did not know the definition of ontology, and how that specific one was based on self-expression. With that interpretation, it was hard to choose (C) as the correct answer.

@katinthehat Same! It reads as part of Turner's interpretation.

Kevinnnn 🥰

@casti412627 best part is that you really dont have to!

they circled the question in the blind review but i trusted myself and chose the same correct answer again in the br. lets goooo

Shallow dipppp!!!!

A couple months back when I started studying for the LSAT and first came across this section, my brain just rejected to comprehend the concept so I essentially just skimmed it.

Obviously, I got ripped apart by LR question types like MBT and Parallel so right now I'm revisiting this lesson to really learn it.

And WOW, I ACTUALLY understand everything. I can't wait to get back to my LR training and see how much better I can do. I literally hear things click in my brain remembering some LR questions I COULD NOT UNDERSTAND to save my life!!!

I saw some comments that were confused about how this actually applied to the LSAT questions. I get the confusion and how it's really easy to lose motivation/interest. So I'm leaving this comment to share my experience. Everyone who's going through this step in their LSAT studying journey, hang in there. I hope everyone gets the results they want in the end :)

@Jcruzmed Hey, so the second example is wrong. Being a Jedi is sufficient to use the force, but not necessary to use the force. Jedi is a subset in the superset of users of force. Hope this helps!

Was down to C and E.

Thought E wasn't good enough of an answer--I thought the argument failed to consider that having the best players DOES NOT guarantee your team will be the best, and so you don't know if your team is the most likely to win the championship. And the way I translated E into the stimulus was that it was pointing at the weakness of the premise that the best team is most likely to win and only at that weakness.

I thought C was better targeted at not only the weird premise but also the sub-conclusion of that team being the best team.

Truthfully, both sucked and I still don't think E is good enough of an answer :p

Oh this one did not click for me at all. Chose A and then B in BR.

this question felt like a word salad because i highlighted 'corporate income tax.'

I immediately thought the answer would point to how the constituents would find reducing corporate income tax irrelevant to them on a personal level--because of the inadequate wording of the survey (like who likes high taxes??) my thought process was like yeah voters don't like high taxes because they personally don't want to pay high taxes. But what's corporate income tax got to do with this?

I had to spend some time analyzing each answer choice and finally arrive at B.

Where is Professor Dan Epps's video gooo :0000 #Feedback

Broke my streak ://///

Praying I don't break my streak 🤲🏼 i need this

@littlehoot Yup! (A) should be written the other way around to be correct. Written as is, if an individual's confidence level in their own economic situation affected how they perceive reports about the overall state of the economy, the economist could still be right.