I took the LSAT in June, I'd say they are similar, but not the same. The median difficulty felt about a 3.5/5 but I'm pretty comfortable with LR material. Regardless I would bet on the test being at most a point to around half of a point harder than the PTs.

This is just one of those questions that tests your ability to locate trap answer choices rather than being super hard to conceptualize. Time and familiarity with taking the LSAT literally is the only way to get these one right i'm afraid. At least in my own experience.

You should pick up "Ellen Cassidy - The Loophole in LSAT Logical Reasoning" Chapter 4 discusses sets, (X --> Y -->Z), (X -most-> Y --> Z), and (X -m-> Y -m-> Z). The whole books is great too. Helped me break into the high 160's

But one of the most important thing to remember is to be as ungenerous as possible.

Some can mean as little as 1%, if I say some of my cookie is chocolate chip and some of my cookie is raisin, then I could mean that my cookie has a single chocolate chip and a single raisin. Does that mean my chocolate chip is on top of my raisin? Nope. Even if most of my cookie is made of chocolate ship and some is raisin, that single raisin could always hide in the regular cookie part. But if most of my cookie is chocolate chip and most of my cookie is raisin, then there is going to be a spot where they are on top of each other because most implies more than half (51%), and there's no way I can have a cookie which is more than 100%.

With necessary and sufficient assumptions you can always assume that whenever the sufficient condition is present the necessary condition will be there too, 100% of the time. The trick of linking logic chains without the some(s) or most(s) is to get really good at translating into your own words, the words 'only' and 'unless'. Group 2 and Group 3 indicators. Practice translating sentences with them until its second nature.

When I was first starting out this video helped a lot:

I think A is wrong for a different reason. One of the conditions needed to fulfill if an action of harm is morally bad, is for the action to actually result in harm. Otherwise, you're in the wrong superset. (What's not up for debate is if 'anything' is 'morally wrong.' It's if an 'action' is 'morally wrong')

Since A states that the effect had no harm, you can't conclude the 'action was morally bad.' HI or RF → MB → "Action that harms another person." Thus /"action that harms another person" → /MB. I think her "attempting" to cause trouble does fulfill the "intentional" sufficient condition but fails the necessary condition of an "action that harms another person"

While I got this question right, I feel that its logic is suspect. How does discounting one possibility discount all others? Thus, forcing the 'must' to be true? It's rejecting an overlooked possibility, but I thought SA answers always had to prove the conclusion true and not simply, and only make the logic more reasonable.

I think I can point you in the right direction. It's also important to remember older LSAT questions contain little leaps in logic, this ones is no different.

"(Peoples rights are violated less) when they are denied an available medical treatment they need because (they lack the means to pay for it) than (when they are denied a treatment on noneconomic grounds.)"

Inferences you have to make:

1. In this context → (People rights are violated less) actually means (Less peoples rights are violated.)

2a. Dr. S - "The high human costs" is a referent to "People are denied their rights to treatments they want or need" Thus, more people have their rights denied.

2b. Dr. L - "With nationalized insurance rich and poor have equal access to life saving medical procedures" means there is no disparity in access, directly going against the more argument given by Dr. S

3. Dr. L - "people's right to decent medical treatment regardless of income is not violated." (Regardless of income) = (noneconomic grounds)

It's the tricky wording for me, double meaning seems to be prevalent in these higher end questions

A tip for anyone struggling or looking to cut down on time: focus on the indefinite pronouns, "any," "most," "more," etc., and then find the answer where the conclusion and premises's indefinite pronouns (or their equivalent) match the question stem. Good luck!

The LSAT is weird. I have been struggling with these questions, but this one came to me so fast that I had a minute to spare.

I was having the same problem,

1. My biggest help was mentally putting a "because " after the question's stimulus and then filling the blank with each answer to find which made the most sense.

2. Typically, you are looking for a word with multiple meanings in the stimulus; 'recorded' for this question doesn't imply that there are more tornados, only that there were more recorded; therefore, just as many could have been occurring. Thus, the answer will give a solution to that.

3. I have also noticed for some of the harder questions in this group, they like to switch the chicken for the egg. So they will say, 'They did their hair because they look great,' one of the answers will imply, "No, they look great because they did their hair."

8.2 was tricky, but here was my reasoning:

1. All libraries and bookstores are intellectual places.

2. Most well-stocked intellectual places showcase a wide range of books on various subjects.

3. But if an intellectual place is disorganized, it is not well-stocked.

Claim 1 had nothing to do with the succeeding claims since neither bookstores nor libraries reappear; 'intellectual places' was the only tie to the other two claims, but since it was not what was 'in question' (i.e., neither claim 2 nor 3 asked if anything was an 'intellectual place'), I was able to disregard the first claim entirely.

1. All libraries and bookstores are intellectual places.

2. Most well-stocked intellectual places showcase a wide range of books on various subjects.

3. But if an intellectual place is disorganized, it is not well-stocked.

Once left with 2 & 3, the question became simpler. Again, since, 'intellectual place" was not in question, I was able to disregard those phrases:

1. All libraries and bookstores are intellectual places.

2. Most well-stocked intellectual places showcase a wide range of books on various subjects.

3. But if an intellectual place is disorganized, it is not well-stocked.

Now the question became, is there a relationship between 'well-stocked'?

2. Most well-stocked [areas] showcase a wide range of books.

3. If [areas] are disorganized, it is not well-stocked.

Since 'disorganization' and 'wide range of books' have nothing to do with one another, I determined there was no argument. Hopefully, this helps someone out.