This has happened to me a few times now. I got it down to B and C but I didn't think that there was an "evidence" presented in the original argument, just reasoning. Anyone else here a former debater who has a high threshold for what constitutes evidence? It's been hard to rewire my brain for the LSAT in that way.

The problem with this AC is that Gilman explicitly doesn't believe that social evolution is inevitable. In fact, her entire theory rests on the premise that humans must consciously change their own social evolution in order to make societal change.

So in answer to your specific question: yes, the future does require a restoration of balance. But this restoration is not inevitable or else Gilman basically has no purpose in all the social activism she does.

B is the obvious AC to this question because it's vague and gets right to the central flaw.

I did have a hard time eliminating E, but the more I think about, I see how irrelevant it is. Even if we grant that the author failed to consider that the legislator may oppose this act because of constituent wishes, how does this relate to the argument the author already made? The argument itself is still severely flawed.

The way I've come to see flaw questions is like this: if someone were to say this argument to you and you responded with the correct AC, they would have to run away with their tail between their legs because you've pointed out the major flaw in the argument. If we apply that idea to this question, I just see the author responding to the AC with "so what? My argument still stands. She is inconsistent in voting and we shouldn't trust her and we should approve this act." On the other hand, if you said AC E to the author, they would have to reconsider their entire position.

Your statement is accurate but it doesn't explain why you are more likely to get a fake amber if there's a normal-appearing insect. The distinction in the stim is between fake and non-fake amber, both of which supposedly have "normal" insects. So for the conclusion to be true, we need to strengthen the idea that fake amber has more normal insects than real amber. Who cares if forgers are more likely to make insect amber because it's worth more? That doesn't strengthen the argument.

You should visit the websites of every school you want to attend. From my research, the prompt is almost always the same. The want you to tell them "who you are" or something along those lines. It's the length that varies. UC Berkeley wants a 4 pg. essay whereas Georgetown wants 2 pgs. My plan was to write a 2 page version and mark where I can expand or shorten depending on the school.

Did anyone else choose B because it was the only one that mentioned a corporation? For principle questions, I try to stick as close to the principle as possible. I pretty much immediately got rid of E because it was an individual doing the action.

#help

I misunderstood Miriam's argument in light of AC A. I didn't totally understand it after reading, so when I got to A, I re-interpreted the argument to fit the answer. Now, I see where I went wrong.

Laurel is saying MTs must help in extreme cases.

Miriam is saying MTs must help in common cases.

It's that simple.

A - MTs must help in all cases

This is wrong for both people.

C- MTs must help in extreme cases

They clearly disagree about this.

I think this goes for the whole passage, but especially Q14: don't get too caught up in the colonial history. The colonial examples are just that...examples. The main point is about human culture broadly. I think the ACs are easy to eliminate in 14 if you stayed focused on what this passage is actually about -- culture and identity, not colonialism.

People seem to care a lot about this pen business, so just to clarify...the LSAC website explicitly states "Digital LSAT test takers will also be permitted to use their own pencil and eraser for making notes." If you're worried about not having a pencil, you can still bring one. I'm not sure why you would even need a pen for this test. I'd just set it aside and ignore it during the test but that's just for me. Obviously, the concern about having to take notes separately is still a bummer.

@leahbeuk911 Thanks for letting me know! For the watch problem, if you have a watch with a spinning bezel, you can always reset even in the middle of the section. If you forgot to reset, just spin your arrow to 35 minutes past where the last section started and then you're right back on track. Hope that helps for next time!

I got this Q right in timed conditions, but when I went back for BR I chose B. They both require assumptions and I thought B had a smaller assumption (but really it was a wild guess for BR).

A: The RDC also have a positive benefit to dragonfly larvae who need water to survive. The assumption I saw here is that 1) the wetlands have a potential to dry up meaning this is actually a benefit to them and 2) this saves more larvae than are eaten by RDC in the first place.

B: I didn't notice this in timed conditions, but the stim says "the dragonfly populations are more likely to remain healthy." To me, "populations" implied ALL dragonflies -- babies and adults. So the assumption here is that more adults live than babies die by RDC so of course the population as a whole remains healthier.

I'm not sure how to eliminate B at this point.

#help

For Q12, I crossed out C because it only listed two of the three reasons for the income gap. I see now that the answer is still supported by the passage because the statement doesn't say "the N-S income gap increased primarily because of..." It's just making a statement about two factors that contributed to the increase which is supported by the passage.

This question is a great example of how all the core curriculum relates to each other! I viewed E like a necessary assumption answer. It wouldn't have been a perfect NA answer, but pretty close. If E wasn't the case (violent inmates not on a high-nutrient diet did show improvement) then the arg would be pretty wrecked. Hence, why this answer choice helps strengthen the relationship between the premie and conclusion.

#help

Why is C for #6 incorrect?

It says Gilliam didn't like the expectation that "African American artists produce explicitly political art." I took this to mean he just wants it to be more subtle. The passage even says "he sought an artistic form that was more expressive than a painted figure or political slogan, more evocative of the complexity of human experience in general, and of the African Amerian experience in particular" Doesn't that mean he still produces political art??

I also thought D was wrong because there is nothing in the passage about Gilliam's thoughts on the Color Field movement. Who's to say he even liked being part of this group since he's merely "associated" with them?

I am really confused...

So this question I skipped after about 30 seconds because I could not choose between A and C. Luckily, I had time to come back and I chose the correct answer. I wasn't 100% sure, though.

AC A seemed more correct because I could point to exactly where this happens, but it took me a while to figure out why AC C is 100% wrong. The conclusion says "this indicates that the health of a newborn DEPENDS to a large extent..." Written in the present tense, this definitely implies that it still exists. The premise is talking about the 19th century and the conclusion seems to talk about the present.

I think what's actually incorrect about this AC is that it says "inferring...that a past correlation between two phenomena still exists." The argument is not saying that specific correlation still exists. It's saying that a totally different causation (health of newborn and amount of food) still exists. Hence, why AC A is correct.

I was seriously SO thrown off by the word "phenomenon." I even had to look it up during BR to make sure I was correct. I was interpreting "phenomenon" to mean a certain situation or fact that exists which is hard to explain. I could not figure out what "phenomenon" each AC was referring to because "advancing scientific understanding" and "paranormal TV shows" are not a phenomena. Eventually, I just ignored the word phenomenon and got the right answer by replacing it with "X" and "Y."

I don't totally understand how E is irrelevant? Do we not need to explain assertions in an argument?

On a more general note, I'm having an EXTREMELY difficult time with Flaw Qs because I overthink them and the wording of the ACs confuses me. Is it safe to say that E would never be a flaw in another argument as well? I guess explanations don't matter to LSAT arguments?

I'm having a hard time seeing how C doesn't weaken this argument? In my mind, it provides an alternate explanation/cause of the correlation so I immediately picked it and moved on. #help

This question is an excellent example of how RRE questions sometimes require you to make assumptions. I chose A from POE, but I see now that, while B and C require some assumptions, A just doesn't help Yeung win at all. I think for RRE questions, it's okay to dial down the part of our brain that is picking out assumptions that must be made...

Right! Thank you!

This question is a good example of how NA ACs are usually worded weakly. I was inclined to choose C just because it was the least declarative and only said "can." Obviously, it's the correct AC for better reasons, but I wonder if I would have a harder time with Q if it said "always" instead of "can?"

This question points out a similarity between NA and Strength Qs. This NA got rid of an alt cause just as a Strengthing AC can get rid of an alt cause. Interesting!