@jujujube most is not equal to 50% its at least 51% and could be 100%.

@SirHarvey i mean.. mullen is proposing some policy, you can assume he is an elected official or maybe a political pundit or popular activist at the very least, so he has some influence and power. and then he has HEAVY investments in business thats brought LARGE profits.. all things being considered, mullen seems pretty rich.

am i the only one who read the explanation for AC D and wanted to cancel my subscription and change my major. what is that explanation bro

@JulianBenjamin Not sure if im misunderstanding your comment, but your comment is why C is the correct answer. We are looking for the AC that does not weaken the argument. Just because the people conducting the study dont have a background in medicine does not mean that the study is weak or invalid. Especially since the stim did not give us any reason to believe that their background had any effect.

this question got me. i was got. i got got.

harmed from gil disease.... ima harm myself bruh

the stimulus says "in certain situations" people react to unpleasant stimuli with violence only due to cultural conditioning. E says violent behavior as a whole is a product of ones cultural environment. It generalizes where as the stim narrows it to CERTAIN conditions. am i missing something????????????

i was going to choose AC B but it says the equipment wont be available solely to the TOP gov officials. it can be that the equipment would be available for all lower level gov officials as well, but not the rest of the population which would make that answer insufficient.

i felt like D was a trap answer. f the judges are saying eye witness testimony is fallible, it supports the psychologists argument. Just because the judge tells the jury its fallible doesnt mean the jury will make the correct determination. In D the judge is affirming the argument.

of good sound quality is the most stupid thing ive ever heard........... why is that part of the answer???

wouldnt tend and typically be a most qualifier? i saw a tutor say she mapped it out with some..

the correct answer choice is such BS. Even if the samples werent chosen randomly, they still find 20% defects. The contract says they must stay at 5%….. it doesn’t weaken the argument. A does because if the sample size is not representative of all the products then that 20% is not an accurate #. Wtf bro

i will never let this question type trick me again. It is totally reasonable to assume smith will be obliged to repair any structural defects to the house, except for those that jones is responsible for. that just makes sense. But the question is asking what can be concluded FROM THE INFO ABOVE. it simply wasnt stated, it was assumed. D can get F** but i get it now.... never again.

someone just tell me... i read AC A and i said... thats absurd we cant live in a world where people should be excused for violating laws because they werent aware of them............ was my mistake....... thinking????? the question says if valid. im learning

why am i trying to eliminate an alternate explanation for tooth decay when the argument is not even speaking about what causes tooth decay. The stem is arguing that fluoride does not prevent tooth decay. As to what causes it, the stem is completely silent. so why would i be looking for an AC that is worried with causes. thats why i chose AC B because it seems to show that even though all dentists use fluoride america still has higher rates of tooth decay. which undermines fluoride and strengthens the argument. I see that the stem says fluoridated water, and AC B is talking about fluoride in general, and thats partly why its wrong. But as i said, i really dont get why the correct answer choice is tackling alternate causes for tooth decay when the argument is silent on causes and is speaking about prevention.

I was going to complain and say I didn’t know I needed to buy a cookbook in case the LSAT expected me to memorize recipes but then I reread the conclusion

i got this correct. it felt really intuitive, but trying to understand the explanation was super confusing.

potentially needing to make 6 separate conditional chains in 1 min is crazy

im not a scientist bruh

lmao, thinking like a cat.. just say what u wanna say

A--->B

B<s>C

A<s>c

this is invalid. but if there is at least 1 B in the set of C

then shouldnt there be at least 1 A in the set of C. Since all A's are B's?

@meepmeep idk when youre taking the LSAT, but if youre still in school and have time, take a symbolic logic class.

i got 0/3

3 separate times lmaooooooo nice

@Alexis

cannot kill both arya and sansa does not imply needing to kill one of them. it just means he cant kill both.

if he doesnt kill either of them that fact does not contradict the sentence he cannot kill both.

so your /A-->S says if he doesnt kill arya he must kill sansa. which is not correct.

A-->/S is correct because the sentence says he cannot kill both arya and sansa, so if he kills arya he must not kill sansa.

im really trying to understand #5