For question 9, I felt like scorn was just too strong of a word. Aside from calling them Barbarians what did he say to imply he felt scorn? Dissapointment seemed more appropriate, and I understand dissapointment means he had some expectation of them but couldnt it be inferred that Matthew expected them to just do better?

#help (Added by Admin)

This is one of those questions where real life experience can actually hurt you. Im a journalism major and had to interview a newspaper editor last semester. I chose E because less reporters = more work per reporter = sloppier work = more mistakes. Silly me.

You gotta love how the LSAT makes you prep in one way, but that very same thought process will screw you over with another answer. I picked C for question 4 because I didn't consider "lack of evidence" to be evidence. Why? Because that is literally an argument flaw in logical reasoning.

I didnt pick A because it seemed more like a necessary assumption than a strengthening. I have to remember it doesnt have to make the argument valid or make it superman strong, just a little bit stronger is all that is needed.

I got this question wrong and its because I brought personal experience into it. I grow peppers to make hot sauce, and peppers became hot as a defense system, yet we still eat them. Which made B irrelevant to me. Dumb mistake.

I got 14 wrong because I thought A said "regionally oriented schools have been equally deficient in teaching statute law". I need to read a lot slower.

The way this question was worded, when they started mentioning the numbers of otters, was really hard for me to understand. I hate when they make things purposely difficult to read.

I got this one wrong and its because B is literally a flaw. Proving something right by saying you have no evidence against it is a flawed argument. But I failed to realize that im strengthening the argument, not validating it. So therefore it is perfectly suitable as a strengthening choice.

I still feel like A should be eliminated. If Yeung has a smaller percentage of voters elgible than Panitch, is it not a possibility that less of his voters were polled, as they only polled elgible voters, therefore making it seem like Panitch was sure to win? Is that not a possibility....

Turning 30 this summer.

I almost picked answer A but realized, even though JY didn't state this, that A is already implied in the premise. If the classical account is confounded by new data then surely it must be inaccurate in some ways.

I did my lawgic a little different but got the same result.

MB→DP→/P→/S

therefore S→P→/DP→/MB

I missed this because i misread the question stem. read it again and figured it out in about 10 seconds uhhhh.

I read D as "Fatalities" not "Facilities" uhhhhh. Seemed too easy lol.

Why is this in the most strongly supported question sets? he even goes about the answer like it is a main point/conclusion problem? Was it to throw a curveball because this really threw me off.

#help (Added by Admin)