My takeaway: always read all the ACs

"Your district like this because of gerrymandering..." LMAO

This passage really ruined my whole section... -10 on RC (usually -6,-7) and -4 on this one....

Good luck and happy Thanksgiving!

I have trouble understanding why A is the correct AC. I think the real flaw is what JY said that the impact of laughter may be stronger than the impact of high tendency to laugh. But what A is saying is that more tendency, more laughter, which seems directly contradict to the conclusion.... (high tendency but laugh a little)

Really bad LSAT question that it forces you to choose the so-called "best" ACs of five which is actually a bad one. It is very possible that this kind of correct AC appearing in other questions would be the wrong one. The super crazy "comparing ACs" strategy is making more and more LR ACs become inconsistent with each other.

Nowhere did Edgar indicate that the fish species is the "ONLY reason".

#help

Still don't understand why A is wrong. I know there is a difference between "failed to do sth one promised to do" and "did not promise to do", but I don't think this difference matters here. the contrapositive of A is "If someone did (did not fail to do) sth she promised to do, then she did sth she ought to do." I think we can infer from this statement that "promise to do ---> ought to do" because if "did A means did B", does it mean that A is sth very similar to B? I think the answer is yes... Can someone tell me where am I wrong?

#help

D isn't a NA because if you negate it, the situation could well be that 49% of the entrapment occurred (other 51% could be fighting) when dire wolves were S or H. I don't see how this destroy or even weaken the conclusion.

@

Hi! I mean the Answer Choice of the last question of each section. Apologize for any misunderstanding.

AC C: my thinking while taking the test was that b/c the numbers of the turtles in JP was declining, the. numbers of turtles in Baja should also decline. Now I realize that turtles in Baja may not come entirely from JP, they can come from elsewhere and thus keeping the numbers of turtle in Baja constant.

geez got the question stem the opposite way

As a non-native speaker, have to admit don't know what "burrow" means.... And for god sake, what the fk is wrong with this section? -7 during timed test and still -7 after BR. So many questions on recent lsat depend on the SUBJECTIVE evaluations on the reasonableness of AC's implict assumption. Ridiculous

Have a question about Q27 AC (D) line6-9 seem to support that Darwin's theory didn't directly apply to social ideology (descriptive), but intellectuals translated into social language (ethical messages).

This is a bullshit question

If B, fiction writing is the correct AC of Q25, why C could not be the correct AC of Q24? seems like a contradiction...

#help

After reading all the comments below and other explanations on Manhattan Forum, I conclude that this is a bullshit question.

Still don't understand Why A is correct. The conclusion is “the subsequent instructions must be effective”. Even if the initial command hasn't been repeated many times, it only follows that the initial command isn't effective, but that is not what the argument concludes. The argument only talks about subsequent instructions.

#help

Hi! really helpful information. Also would like to know do you have data on the LAST Question of each section??? I think this might be much more helpful.

#help

Have trouble understanding Q6. Why D is not the correct AC? The question is asking about the cause, not the "DIRECT cause". Arguably D is the cause and is directly supported in the passage. Also, AC E is more like a direct translation of "dwindling stock of HC varieties" which seems to me is just using different words to describe the same phenomenon. How could this to be the right AC?

#help

Actually I think the reasoning structure is pretty well and I didn't see any flaw during test. B is suggesting there are other moral principles which could override the principle of preventing family members from being harmed. If this is true, then it means there are circumstances that one could fail to fulfill one's moral duty of preventing family members from being harmed, which seems to contradict the first sentence and makes this moral duty not as universally accepted since there are exceptions. Also, B is also suggesting that moral duty =/= morally right, is it a bit of against common sense?

Can someone help explain AC D? I think strengthen type Q need to strengthen the relationship between premise and conclusion. However, D only states there are no other parties, is that an additional premise?

#help

C says "most people tip only for those services for which it is customary to tip", which I think arguably is also part of "people's attitude toward tipping." Does it suggest that C also agrees AC D?

#help

Having trouble understanding why B is wrong. The difference between "have the right to do" and "actually did something" is pretty clear to me, but AC B says "...will be billed by the city FOR SNOW REMOVAL." Does it indicate that the city has already removed the snow????

#help

The problem with D I think is that it only mentions collisions between SUVs and smaller cars.

If the number of average collisions between SUVs and smaller cars is 100, between SUVs and SUVs is 5, and between smaller cars and smaller cars is 99, then the real problem here is acutually smaller cars...