Hi all, could someone help me see why B is not supported? The way I see it, the scientist shouldn't be allowed to profit from his technology... But if he isn't ALLOWED to do something, isn't that a restriction? And doesn't that go against the statement "Society should not restrict the performance... except to prevent negative effects" ?

His profiting wouldn't cause negative effects; it just wouldn't spread the benefits around. The second part of answer B says that allowing others to profit wouldn't diminish the scientist's own profits. But that's irrelevant, isn't it? Either way, it's still limiting/restricting the scientist. This seems inconsistent to me.

Thank you so much! I feel like I'm missing something very obvious here.

Purpose of proving grounds: Designed to be so demanding that only those students most committed to being science majors will receive passing grades in these courses.

C: Designing introductory science courses to serve as proving grounds has not served its intended purpose

Premise: Studies show that some of the students in these very demanding intro courses who are least enthusiastic about science receive passing grades in these courses.

There is a gap here between "most committed to being majors" and "least enthusiastic about science."

What if those who are least enthusiastic are most committed to being science majors and passed the course? That would destroy the author's argument because the sole premise now becomes irrelevant.

However, I feel D is more like a sufficient assumption rather than necessary assumption. Let's negate D : some of the students who are least enthusiastic are among the students most committed to being science majors. However, with this negation, there are still two possibilities: (1) least enthusiastic +most committed + passed the course; (2) least enthusiastic + most committed+ not passed the course. So if all the students mentioned in D fall within the second the possibility, the conclusion still stands. So could anyone explain why D is a necessary one as it is broader than what we need.

Could anyone explain why D rather than C is correct?

P: (1) most of the new shows produced last year by WW were canceled;

(2) this year's new shows are all police dramas, and few police dramas have been popular in recent years

C: most of this year's new shows will be canceled

To strengthen, we want to make last year and this year more similar. So it is better to find sth like last year's police dramas were cancelled.

C： police drama --> cancelled

D: cancelled --> police drama

I feel both C and D could fulfill the gap.

Hi, I would appreciate if anyone could explain why E is correct as now I am confused when could we make assumption in the Lsat.

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Hi guys,

I am very nervous and depressed after taking 5 PTs and looking for advice for my October LSAT.

My diagnostic around early June was a 161. I have spent 7 weeks on 7sage and Manhatton, and also finished the Cambridge LSAT by category. I have taken 5 PTs in the past two week. However, it looks like I am plateauing at around 168-169 and my goal is to get a 170+ on test day.

As for LR, in the past 5 tests I went -7 (pt 70), -6 (pt57), -4 (pt 55), -4(pt73), -9(pt58). In light of question types, totally, I missed 5 for MSS, 5 NA, 5 Flaw, 2 PF, 3 Weaken, 3 Strengthen, 2 Resolve reconcile, 1 MBF, 1MC, 1Para, 1 Argument part and 1 Misc. I feel that 20% of these questions are really difficult that I could not figure out the correct answer by myself. Another 20% are really simple that I either misread the question stem (like misread weakening question as strengthen question) or overlook a key word. The remaining are the ones I am struggling between two choices and end up with the wrong one. Also, for the correct questions, I am also not certain for about 15% of the questions.

As for RC, I went -6 (pt 70), -4 (pt57), -2 (pt 55), -6(pt73), -4(pt58). I am bad at the questions with answers in abstract language, and the analogy question. And some times I have trouble with the difficult words.

As for LG, I went -0 (pt 70), -3 (pt57), -1 (pt 55), -0(pt73), -0(pt58).

Overall I'm having a really hard time making the marginal gains I need to get myself consistently above 170. This is almost my last chance to take LSAT, therefore, I really want to do well. Please do not hesitate to give me any advice you regard as helpful. Also, I am wondering if I need to hire a personal tutor since there is only 5 weeks left. Thank you guys.

Hi, guys, I am confused with the relationship between "causation" and conditional logic. Could anyone give me some help? According to the lessons, it seems that "A causes B" = A-->B. However, in PT25-S4-Q12, this rule does not seem to work. In the stimulus, "the school principle insisted that student failures are caused by bad teaching." Then, he concludes that since failing grades disappeared, the teaching had improved at the school. This is a parallel flaw question. I am wondering what is the flaw. Isn't it that bad teaching --> failure, here, /failure, therefore,/bad teaching? I also find several similar questions in the PTs. Therefore, I really need your help. Thank you so much.