Any guesses on the curve for this one?

The word significant in a really screws with you. Because I think most of us applying the logic JY said would cross it out for that reason because we know to not choose an answer we KNOW isnt right, in this case, NOT necessary... I feel on the real exam people would lose points for this because they know A isn't necessary so they end up choosing something else.

I want to see this 30 page paper explaining this bc it's just unfair..

For E JY says we would need the treatment for back and leg pain to be SOMETIMES a drug that relieves inflammation..why?

#help

Does anyone have a better explanation for why D for 3 isn't a good answer also? Stadiums do enable sports just as how cattle enable the size of population. And yes it's true sports dont NEED stadiums they can use fields, but the size of the population could have been due to something else other than cattle too, if cattle wasn't there, who's to say some other factor can't enable them to grow in population..

I get why B is right but I'm having difficulty eliminating D

#help

You can't select your selection, you have to do it in order. And I would say there's something like 30 seconds to a minute and half between sections.

I'm pretty sure you can bring in medications as long as it fits into the plastic bag.

#help

Would e be right if it said more graduates with degrees were likely to respond? Because then maybe the higher percentage was because more of them responded

#help

So is A wrong mainly because of the word "major"?

#help

Anyone care to explain how this is a valid reasoning? I guess I just matched variables like JY did, but I'm interested to know why this is even valid argument at all, we don't see this quite often and new LSATs can give this as a analysis question later on

C is trying to get you to think, ok so he found an apple the same size so automatically assume it's wild and not cultivated. why couldnt it be cultivated but just a smaller cultivated. why can't cultivated have different sizes, wild have different sizes. but be careful thats not what c is saying. if c said

takes for granted that all wild and all cultivated apples are the same size. Then yes it would be correct. But that's not what it's saying, it's saying takes for granted ALL apples are either the size of wild or cultivated, and he just doesn't do this. If he was doing this, his argument would have gone something like: oh I found an apple, it's not the size of wild, or cultivated, so can't be neither of them. But that's not what author said, author actually said oh it was the SAME as wild, so not cultivated. aka He assumes all cultivated is the same size, all wild are the same size regardless of point in history, which B points out.

@philosopherstonez340 I agree with this. Do you know what are the other ways to strengthen weaken casual?

So to strengthen a cause b:

a there b there

b not there a not there

a not there b not there

And to weaken a cause b:

a there b not there

b there a not there

Is that a sufficient list of the ways?

#help

Why can't B be correct? The stimulus just says toxic levels, then collapse, suggesting toxic levels are what caused the collapse, but it could just be a coincidence. Something else unrelated to the toxic levels is the cause of collapse (aka would have collapsed sooner or later even without use of irrigation). And so if we expose this gap, can't we say well if it's not the irrigation that caused the collapse how can we say irrigation would cause collapse in modern society?

#help

Would C be a contender as the right AC if it said more pumpkins are sold to consumers in regions of short growing seasons than those in regions with long growing seasons?

Or would it still not be correct because who cares where it's sold, you can just transport the pumpkins, it still remains a issue of if the short growing season is bad for the pumpkins, even if most of the ppl in this region buy it, you should still grow it where it's long seasons to avoid huge losses and just ship it back over here. In other words, we can't just assume because more people buy it in the short growing season region, that's enough reason to grow it there..maybe the frost is a big enough con that it outweighs the small pro of shorter shipping.

@akhamdamov715 hey! do you mind if I get a copy too? Thanks!

@xadrianas6x881 @sjeong291240 Thanks guys for the input!

LOL I thought it was just me!!!

I have dreams every night, and I would say 50% of them are LG and I would be viciously trying to place game pieces. Like I would spend a whole night just solving one game.

Hi guys, can anyone tell me if the LR section with the question about some BU17 government employee some of them work in the Hanson building was the real or experimental LR? It was the SA one where you needed to map it out to figure out the most/some arrows. That's the only question I can really remember from that section and it would help me decide if I'm going to cancel or not.. >.((/p)

In other words, by the same logic, it can be direct support for conclusion that coal mining reduces jobs. why? because businesses depend on natural beauty, and then implicit assumption: coal mining destroys the natural beauty that businesses depend on, therefore if it destroys something businesses depend on, then jobs will be lost..

#help

why can't it be the case that local businesses depend on natural beauty be its own premise where IN CONJUNCTION with the fact coal mining will destroy natural beauty IN CONJUNCTION with the fact coal will close businesses allow us to arrive at the concluion..I just don't see how if you needed an implicit assumption to get to the coal mining close businesses, then that can still count as support for it..

Is this Edmonton Canada 9am?

Thanks!

#help

for E is it warranted to assume demand went up faster than the supply?

What if it didn't? Then price should have still gone down.

When can we make these assumptions..