I can see that D is linking objective evaluation --> discuss aesthetic value. But I can't see where poem has whatever meaning assigned by its reader is playing a role? Isn't it an important part of the conclusion?

I didn't choose E because I thought that "take the offer" is different from "want it?" Like, you may not actively want something but would still take the offer?

no

I chose E. My line of reasoning was that yes we need many beliefs to survive. But those beliefs can be right and wrong beliefs. So, even when we use that method to increase the overall correctness, we are not hindering our chance of survival.

I noticed that for some RC passages, the last sentence of the passage would seem like that the author is suddenly pivoting. I would view this passage as one of those examples. The last sentences say "That, at least, is the consensus of the so-called experts. One wonders whether the Bambaran artists would agree." That just make me wonder what I just read. Like, this kind of tone shift would make me wonder if the author is trying to insinuate that the content in the entire 3rd paragraph is actually doubtful, or that, in this case, the author actually disagrees with the book writer. These kind of last minute pivots always throw me off and just mess me up entirely. Sometimes they make me question the MP. What is a good approach to them? How should these sentences be viewed?

I had the correct flaw in mind when I went into the question, but E is worded in such a way that I didn't see how it was pointing out the flaw. The Industry spokesperson says that there's no chance of further design flaws because they will be computer-designed.

Well, how do we know that computers are better than human? What if they are just a bunch of dumb computers? We have no support that computer will be flawless in doing the designs. We don't even have support that they are better.

E is essentially pointing this out. It is just phrased in a weird way:

The argument takes for granted, despite evidence to the contrary (clearly there are flawed computers), some computers are not liable to error (yet he says that computers wouldn't make mistakes/aren't dumb computers)

really didn't like B because of the word "consequences," which I thought just didn't capture the "long-term stability of this way of protecting groundwater is unknown" part. Also didn't like the "drilling in complex geologic systems" part because it just captures one part of the support and cannot be said for the rest of it.

I chose B. Wouldn't the theoretical trainings described in paragraph B count as non-fiction? Also, I eliminated E because I had trouble equating ethical dilemmas with the emotional dimension of patients' needs.

I had trouble with this problem because I had a hard time identifying which sentence is the conclusion. In timed practice, I thought that the 1st sentence is the conclusion. How do I avoid mistakes like this?

I interpreted the stimulus as saying that there is just one hypothesis, namely, that Homer wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey. There is evidence for this hypothesis, and there is evidence against this hypothesis. And since "there is no overwhelming evidence for either claim," we should be it - the hypothesis that Homer wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey.

I can see why B is right by seeing them as two separate hypotheses, but I never would've thought of it that way. Am I just misreading the stimulus? I'm not sure why it went wrong for me.

I'm not sure why A can't be an NA. If we deny A, doesn't it give us: Of the armadillos living in the area of the tagging site last spring, MOST were able to avoid being tagged by the researcher.

If that's the case, won't it show that the researcher's sample is too small to make that conclusion?

What's the proper way to negate a "few would be able to...." statement?

I'm still confused on B. The amount of stretch required seems to be too much that in another question it could be a reason to eliminate this answer choice. On these point of issue questions I'm constantly unsure of how much inference I should make. In this case, it seems like quite a bit.

I chose D because I thought that there are two reasons that wildlife habitats and forests would be eroded. One is agriculture and the other is the need for more urban areas. Kim would agree with D. I thought that Hampton would also agree because, although the agriculture problem will be solved, there is still the problem of just needing more urban areas e.g., housing), so while Hampton addresses one problem, there is still another one that would diminish wildlife habitats and forests. #help

My question is what usually constitute as data in LSAT language? I didn't think of the study as data.

I am having so much trouble making sense of C. I get it when I'm simply running the contrapositive, but when I'm not using conditional logic and just trying to read and understand C, I can't seem to make sense of it.

Hi JY, will we be able to PT without the experimental section some time soon? Thanks!

will we be able to import drill results?

This shows the importance of reading the question stem lmao

I actually think that the first part of the diagram should be drawn as: displayed --> 20th century --> loan OR permanent. Can a tutor look at this? #help

Yes.

I worked full time during my LSAT prep. It's definitely demanding but I told myself that it is what I wanted no matter what. It works for some people and it doesn't for others. You have to really ask yourself if you it's something that you can handle.

suggestion: with a 3-section PT, put the 10 minute break after the 2nd section.

I am still having trouble seeing why A is the correct answer. I understand that (A) says that the critique of internal relations is that it fails to define entities. But the author is critiquing internal relations because it's impossible to define relationships. But doesn't the internal relations theory say that to define an entity we need to understand its relationships? But we cannot understand all of its relationships. And that's what the author is attacking?

I am still confused about D. I didn't think that "social conventions" and "jurists' interpretations" are the same thing.

so here is one inference I didn't know. Are there other inferences we can make about most/some statements?

subset vs. whole set

argument uses evidence of subsets to conclude about the whole set. the correct weakening question points this out by pointing out other subsets