I agree with this. I think I was nervous on test day, but I got a 165 when I had been practice testing in the 174 range. The logic sections were certainly harder. I thought reading was about the same, but many others said they thought it was harder too.

What a boring section. This was the hardest to study through just by virtue of the fact that each question could be solved in 15 seconds or less. This should probably be one of the first sections

A is incorrect because it is talking about the effect that two pieces of similarly colored paper may have on someone, which is irrelevant to the argument. The stimulus says, basically, "colored paper allows for the same shade of color to be used in varying contexts, which allows for analysis of that specific colors' impact." Paint, however, functions differently--it cannot "allow for analysis of a colors' impact" because its hard to make the same color twice.

So then, the argument is looking for an assumption which says "the ability to analyze a color's impact in varying contexts is desirable."

A says "the same shades elicit the same impact when used in similar contexts." That strengthens the idea that colored paper really does allow for analysis in varying circumstances because, obviously, if we confirm that the same shades give the same outcome, we can be more confident that shades of color do have something to do with analysis of art. If blue gives the same idea of the sea in every circumstance we use it, we could say "blue is used in art to evoke feelings of the sea."

But I'm sure you see why that doesn't have much to do with the argument itself. Its helpful, but it is not necessary for the conclusion that "paper>paint," and it definitely doesn't address the core issue that the argument doesn't consider whether we want to know that blue evokes sea-like feelings.

You could modify A to say something like "Two colored sheets of paper are capable of being exactly the same color," and it would then be necessary. I think. I'm actually not sure if that would be necessary, because I don't know if being "exactly the same color" matters--maybe the colors are allowed to be ever-so-slightly different, barely different to the human eye, but still able to give good comparative analysis between two circumstances...

Sorry for being wordy! Hope this helps!

I would say that one small hack for SA questions would be "the stronger worded they are, the more likely to be correct they are." An answer choice that says something is usually true is likely to be worse than one that says the same thing is always true. SA questions are nice because you're just trying to find something sufficient for the right answer, something that says every X is Y, not something that would actually make sense. The right answer to this problem could have been: "Every consumer who does not bother to acquire such information is an alien, and aliens are always rational." So, once you understand the rules of logic and can understand the stimulus, you've probably done most of the heavy lifting. I spend more time translating these arguments than looking at the answers

No. The ONLY questions that religiously follow that rule should be MSS questions (anything that asks about what you can infer from the stim). In general, for RRE, Strengthen, and Weaken questions, questions are totally allowed to bring in new information in an attempt to explain the problem.

In answer E, we are told that there's a difference between the 24 year study and the 12 year study—namely that the 12 year study had a smaller proportion of smokers. To put it briefly, you can eliminate E because it mentions a clear difference in the two studies, but it would be wrong to eliminate E for new information.

I could put: "Aliens came to earth and snuck into the bedrooms of every child and stole their cookies" in place of answer choice D, and it would still be the right answer (precisely because it has nothing to do with the stimulus).

Conversely, I could replace E with "Aliens came down and snuck into every researcher's bedroom who participated in the 12 year study to modify their data," and E would still be wrong simply because it would imply a difference in the two studies.

Does this help?

I hope you don't mind me responding to another one of your comments—I responded to one at the end of the PAI/Disagree section. I promise that the best thing you can do for yourself is just to practice, and practice a lot. The best bit of advice I've received, and one thats emphasized here through blind review, is to take it really slow at first. I would do drills and take an hour to finish them, making sure I got it right. Of course, I'd still get 2 wrong out of 25 or something, but I would mostly come to understand why those were wrong. Over time, I realized that I was coming to answers faster and with more certainty. It can take a while, but once you can understand the question stem (stimulus) and the basic argument at a glance, you have more time to think about what the right answer should be. And what the wrong answer should be. And that makes it easier/faster to find the right answer.

This question, for example. I kept the video paused at the first second, read the stem, and then read the argument. I recognized almost immediately that it was a kind of either/or question. "If less than 50 and more than 25, no funding. We know there will be funding, and we know more than 25 (percent of material will be duplicated)." So, before the answer choices were even revealed, I had some idea that we were looking for something which stated "more than 50 (new hires per year)." That means that when I see an answer choice like D, which speaks only about some x duplicating more than 25%, I can eliminate it without even a second thought. The professor surprised me when he pointed out that D swapped the named departments. I eliminated it for a separate and more basic reason. His reasoning is more solid, but its also more time consuming and thought intensive.

So, if your LSAT date is more than a few months from now, don't worry about timing. At some point, you'll see that C states "x is better than y if...." and you will be able to instantly eliminate it as a choice because you know the question didn't mention any comparative value measurement, or because you know you need to look for something which mentions y's relationship to z and not x's relationship to y.

Hopefully this was helpful. Sorry for typing an essay at you!

practice. Lots of practice. The LSAT is just patterns reconfigured and sloshed around, so you get much better at seeing those patterns the more and more exercises like this that you take.

Also worth noting: it says that IF we could do this thing (reverse time), we WOULD see less frequent/intense storms. But the argument just says that some factors are likely to counteract the effect of global warming. It's too strong, even if it weren't a fantasy.

heavy on this !!