amen

He really said F*ck them kids

I didn’t know either, It looked kinda like the word “delete” and I guess from context that it meant something that deletes progress.

Yes, I think that makes perfect sense!

The premise to the conclusion that “everyone should use low wattage bulbs” is that “their benefit to the consumer is enormous”. Every answer but B) talks in some relation about consumer benefit, even D, which talks about the opinions of current consumers. How the industry profits is irrelevant to the argument in the stimulus.

Choice E says that bankruptcy will probably SOON force the sale of the stocks.

Regardless of how long the bankruptcy process will take to finalize, the answer tells us the stocks will probably be sold soon.

Hope this helps!

It’s like testing for how fast a cheetah can run on land by making it run in the ocean. The experimental conditions do not match up to reality.

The stimulus tells us that there are 2 molecules in weed killer, and the effectiveness of the weed killer is heavily dependent on which one of the 2 molecules is present in the soil where the weed killer is used. (I imagined like the positive and negative charge of a magnet, if u put + and - charge together then its effective, it not than ineffective)

The stimulus also says that in the real world, concentration of either molecule in soil of different regions vary drastically so we don’t know how much of each molecule is in a particular region of soil.

Choice B tells us that almost all testing of the effectiveness of the weed killer is in an environment where there is equal concentration of each molecule in the soil, which does not reflect the real world conditions. Thus, B supports the authors claim that the testing of the weed killer is misleading because the testing conducted were bad.

Hope this helps and good luck!

Hi! I am in Vancouver and would love to study together! I’m taking my first LSAT in September and would really appreciate study buddies. Thank You!

Also a spectator could have just had a better impression of a character they liked and remembered their lines.

As someone who acted in Hamlet and many other Shakespeare plays, we always get a full script so it was unreasonable to assume an actor did not have a copy of the play.

“Cousin shrimp”

Waller states it as a hypothetical that IF extrasensory abilities exist, then the public would accept it, and does not state whether it does or does not exist. Chin doesn’t dispute whether the public believes in it either, but simply argues about whether the public would believe in extrasensory abilities but focuses on the skepticism of the cultural elites.

Hope this helps!!

Domain Expansion: Conditional Simplification

Im so cooked

PLS HELP with 4.2: “his arguments persuaded the king to go to the war with France, which prevented a war with Germany”

I interpreted the bare versions of the scentence to be “His Arguments Prevented” with everything else being modifiers, thus the word “With” I interpreted as a referring back to “His arguments” instead of the correct answer of “war with France”. Can anyone help explain what fallacy I made here so I can better understand. Thank you!!

One of the main question types in LR is to find if an answer would strengthen or weaken the argument. I think it’s also important to notice what the lsat writers intentionally omit in a segment to test our assumptions.

With the framework that C: mammals do not make good pets because P: tigers are dangerous animals. I think this is an argument with very weak support. Because for this to be true we must assume that tigers are a representation of all mammals on whether if they make good pets. I think this would be like if I argued that C: People are not good lawyers because P: Tony is not a good lawyer.

Are Assumptions what must be true in order for the premise to support the conclusion?!

I think the Disney argument has the most support for its conclusion. The fact that Walt holds a pass, and has never prostrated himself both support the conclusion that Walt sacrificed 10 goats.

The tiger one is very reasonable with one support for its conclusion, and it is a very straightforward one.

The cat one doesn’t have any strong clear support because there is no clear connection between the fact that it ate and the knocked over trash can.