I choose C but now I see how it's talking about a different set. I can see myself choosing B from POE but feeling kinda bad. The "never" in B seems too strong. I can't predict the future. I know that human cognition alone cannot verify it, but how do you know that i can't use X for a easy verification? Am I missing anything? I hate that MMS questions gets some leeway in the "right" answer choices, especially when surrounded by attractive trap answer choices -- At least with MBT, you know one is definitely true.

Nice explanation! We got a quick but very important lesson on strengthening questions. You must address the premise or else your not answering the question.

One of the trickiest questions I've seen. I didn't see the jump from great suffering to just suffering so I fell for D. For D, I see that there is "evidence" given but I don't see how it's relevant. I guess an irrelevant premise is still evidence given.

I hate questions that ask you to jump in someone's head and say what he/she interpreted a statement to mean. My least favorite type of questions by far. It's almost like I have to suffer because someone else can't read.

So a correlation supports a causation? My head was spinning on this one. Usually causation is never the right answer.

Probably is a stronger word than may be? Does it mean more likely than not? I didn't know that so I was stuck between A and C although the during BR, I noticed the average vs sometimes and chose C. In everyday language, probably and may be seems to be used interchangbly at least from my understanding

Through POE, this is an easy question to get right but I'm convinced that the first sentence can also support the second.

C kind of appears to be a necessary assumption but I don't think it is because of the word most. Change that to a some and it is definitely neccessary

I couldn't pick an answer even during BR. I don't see how the most explanatorily powerful theory has anything to do with most scientific theories in general. Telling me something about most scientific theories doesn't tell me anything about the most explanatorily powerful theory. I think someone here asked the same thing.

I happened to see the flaw right away so A just jumped out at me. I didn't really process what E was actually saying since I already had my answer but when I did, I never laughed so hard at an answer choice.

So were asked to jump into a second speaker's mind. It didn't help that his response was one vague line that didn't seem to be relevant. D seems like the only one that has a chance but it took me so long.

Seems like I won't be going perfect on LR becuz of questions like this. There's always another question with new subject matter. Tree regeneration? So they can't be reborn... Wait, trees live more than once? lol what.

I think it's the subject matter that makes this question hard for me. I'm gonna revisit this question every now and then until I get it 100%.

Is B the trickiest trap answer of all time or just one of many? I find myself scanning quickly for the right words on the first past so I circled B first but then read C, which saved me. For C, I believe there is definitely a disagreement but I don't think there is simply a yes and no. It seems to be a no and perhaps yes. C is still the best answer though.

It was funny that I also thought of pilots to eliminate answer choice C during BR

They weren't really trying with the wrong answer choices here

Were people unsuccessful in overturning this question? From the stimulus, the only mention of Ancient Greece was to describe the temple at Didyma. I guessed on the PT and came back to it at the end. I still had no clue and just chose E, which is clearly wrong after review. This isn't an older LSAT either.

So how contractors do their job is knowledge expected for the LSAT.. They basically give clients an estimated cost then later charge them a final cost. Am I missing anything?

I couldn't get this one at all and had to just watch the explanation. It clicked after but I'm wondering why I couldn't see the flaw beforehand or even after reading the answer choices.

Had no clue on this one. I kept eliminating every answer. But after watching the explanation, it's clear why C is correct. I thought C was irreverent because I kept reading it without linking it to the increased temperatures. I thought the increased temperature only meant more yields and couldn't push out that inference before watching the video.

I think the LSAT writers know that we like to skim the question stem, especially when we are feeling confident and have an answer in mind. And they exploited that here.

Without a careful reading of the question stem, I was down the C and E. I ended up choosing E becuz I thought there's no way that E isn't the flaw. E sounds like a typical flaw question answer choice. Turns out the question stem isn't your typical flaw question stem. Next time I find myself thinking there's more than one correct answer, I'll make sure to reread the question stem instead of just comparing the answer choices. Very slick of them once again..

I was down to A and D and ended up choosing D because I was looking for a link between sympathy and the impact of public campaigns. It turns out that "ignore" is too strong for D to be necessary. But I still don't see how A is necessary. So what if there are no other endangered species besides large animals that are relevant to the most important environmental problems? What if the vast majority of the most important environmental problems deal with non-endangered species? How does negating A destroy the argument? And what does sympathy have to do with the impact of a public campaign?

This is one of the few, if not, only LR questions that i feel requires outside knowledge to understand 100% in a decent amount of time. First time I read it, I had no idea what the premise was even saying. I took a break and came back.. Still no idea. So I sat there for 15 minutes and tried to pick out an answer. I liked A right away because it went in opposite direction of the conclusion. I had a vague sense that the premise was trying to use evidence indicating a contradiction of time so I eliminated E, thinking that the cause could be much earlier than the effect. I couldn't confidently eliminate B, C, and D but they all sounded the same so I felt slightly better about choosing A as the answer for the except question. I'd skip this question with no hesitation if it was a timed PT. Do we still get questions like this on modern tests?

This is one of the trickiest NA questions I've seen so far. It took me a long time to see why C was wrong. I chose C over D because I thought negating C would wreck the argument but it actually doesn't. Negating C does not mean that the hypothesis is now confirmed by the evidence because we don't know what is sufficient to confirm language. I couldn't choose between C and D and ended up eliminating D because I thought "expressions" was out of scope. I predicted D but without "expressions" so I fell for C...