The "less likely" threw me off here. Would the answer be wrong if they said "will not pursue" instead of "are less likely than others"?

I feel like by saying "less likely", it implies that some people still undergo personal change despite being "not dissatisfied"

It suck because I knew D was wrong, I just couldn't catch why E was right. So I pick B for like no real reason...

I decided against C and went with D because C seemed to presume that positive change is sufficient in finding relief, when the stimulus just said it was necessary.

I hate questions like this. Suspiciously a little too easy especially after Q10, makes me think I'm missing something :'(

I don't understand by negating (A) would destroy the argument? Just because the coolest brown dwarf could have at some point be hot enough to destroy lithium, it doesn't necessarily mean that it was able to destroy its lithium "completely" or even "completely into helium"? For example, it could have been hot enough to burn lithium for like 0.01 second, burned like 1 molecule of lithium, and kept the rest of it's lithium.

A is dumb. Most people that buy a hammer need a hammer. If they need a hammer, they'll check all the hammers in the store. The stuff near the entrance doesn't just disappear after 10 seconds. I get that we don't know which brand has lower quality and that's something we would have to assume. But you know how many assumptions I'd have to make before I not check a store I'm already in before I stop looking for something I'd want to buy? lol

The "most" in A made be cross it out because I was looking for "any" or "one". Tricky tricky LSAT!

My main confusion here was actually the stimulus. If it had said "...greater than that for similar sales at A comparable series." I would have picked (C), but I thought due to the way it was written it was talking about many other comparable concerts...

Oops

So basically, the main premise is that: Humans today do not share DNA with Neanderthals.

The conclusion is: Humans back then did not interbreed with Neanderthals.

The answer C says: Humans back then and Humans today are the same in that they do not share DNA with Neantherthals. ---> Implies that Humans back then did not mate with Neantherthals because the fact that Humans today don't have much Neanderthal DNA means that Humans back then also don't have much Neanderthal DNA (This is actually an unrealistic assumption to have in reality because Humans can lose that Neanderthal DNA over time from then to now by ceasing mating with Neanderthals: see reasoning below)

Reasoning: If Humans back then are not the same as Humans today, and they DID share DNA with Neantherthals, that means that they most likely DID interbreed with Neantherthals ---> If this was the case, it implies that even though Humans today do not share much DNA with Humans back then, it's not because Humans back then didn't mate with Neanderthals, but it's because Humans lost the Neanderthal DNA over time (from stopping mating Neanderthals from back then to modern times)

This is a good questions because he makes a hypothesis and then tries to prove his hypothesis right away, which can throw you off of C if you're not careful.

I wanted to go with C but didn't because I thought it was a trap since I couldn't think of a specific example of how that would happen.

Now I'm genuinely curious lol

Like, could my culture affect how my schizophrenia manifests? Like if I was Malaysian it would have manifested visually but if I were American it would have manifested in an auditory manner? I understand if different cultures focus on different symptoms more, but the culture affecting how it manifests in the brain?

OMG lol didn't catch that at all, thanks!

Why isn't the 1st sentence considered the main conclusion if the 2nd sentence supports it?

I didn't see the 2nd sentence as support for the 1st sentence. I'm wondering:

How is knowing how Billie Holiday uses her voice evidence for the fact that they use it "just as much" as horn players? How is how someone does something equivalent to how much that thing is done?

I'm a biologist, so I got this right. But how the heck was a normal person supposed to have that knowledge on genetics lol

The "always" in the stimulus' conclusion threw me off here.

Also, for A (and similarly in B), for me, if they were easier to catch now, they were probably easier to catch 30 years ago also, so it wouldn't have accounted for a decrease in beak size. Smaller beak size, sure, but not a decrease.

Doesn't Venessa's rule contradict Jo's rule since "All programmers" would include even the most productive ones? I know I'm being nitpicky, but I'm really just wondering whether we are allowed to use Jo's exception because he speaks second, and therefore is thought of to be in dialogue with Venessa?