I thought for the questions on the LSAT we should give up prior knowledge on subjects, and use only what the passage is telling us to get our answer? When looking at the opera signer passage, this would make the example's argument seem much more valid to me, using only the passage's information available. If someone could clarify why it was specified to forget prior information earlier, yet use our knowledge of actual opera singer numbers here to invalidate the argument, that would be a huge help. Or if a better explanation can be attached, please do.

I swear these last few lessons are just trying to confuse people who understood this section from the beginning

Missing all of them but this one so far has me thrown for a hell of a loop

I might be on team skip these for my test

union's been on strike, he's down on his luck

This question reeks of logic games

Best section so far for me

After getting the last few wrong, nailing this one in my fastest time yet was very rewarding! Lightbulb finally clicked on

Suits helped me on this one

3/5, BUT I was debating the two answers I got wrong with the right ones the whole time. I will count this as a win this time

130 inbound after how I approached this question

I was actually stunned to see how many people chose B, and that a 172 was the average to get this question right

I will get a 180 if all the questions are like this