To add to what Jy says about Q1 answer C being tempting, the answer follows the typical sentence structure of what a summarizing sentence would sound like just to fk with you.

"Despite X , insert outcome here". However, the outcome that was actually in the answer C is so narrow, it's not representative of the whole passage.

Also for Q1 answer C, no where in the passage does it mention the "EQUIPMENT" used being replicated. Just the production processes (techniques).

I think it's good to be able to eliminate answers based on these tiny mistakes.

One reason why the later practice test LR's mess with your head is for questions like these. The "IF" that appears in sentence 2 is not a conditional statement! It's poor english that makes me question how we manage to decode such sentences in everyday life, but if you take a step back, say the sentence in your head, you'll know that the intended meaning of sentence 2 is that "accepted theories say the best explanation for the phenomenon is that the ring is 49km from the black hole".

I'd like to point out that JY's explanation for D is a little bit sus.

I think the main reason D is eliminated is because of the inclusion of the word "rapidly".

If the answer were to simply be that fish did not recover from physiological changes that resulted from the hormonal imbalance, this could be a perfectly valid reason why they have reproductive abnormalities.

Inclusion of the word rapidly completely changes the meaning of the answer choice, from whether or not the event happens to whether or not the event happened "rapidly". Who cares if it didn't happen rapidly? If they eventually recovered, it wont matter.

Question tests if you're a speed reader. Guess I'm a speed reader.

Sadge

I see it... but... what the was that lol

Damn they really did me like that.

I feel like this kind of thinking is why some people say lawyers are unfun to be around lol

Any sane human not taking the LSAT would intuitively go with B, as it makes the most practical sense if it were true.

But, in order to succeed on LSAT, you gotta put on your snarky semantics analyzing hat.

And as JY rightfully points out, offset =/= cause reduction.

But beyond that, leave it to the lawyers to argue semantics for the definition of "urban pollution" lmfao.

For the record on why E doesnt work, the argument form requires a specific relationship between items (X ) and (Y)

Answer E starts off with a conclusion regarding adults reading less (X) and the existence of many other things to do (Y).

But then, the premise goes and talks about how the more time adults spend on other things, the less they read. BUT THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING as (Y).

In order for answer choice E to be correct, the premises that follow would have to give you a correlation between the existence of... more things to do, and idk a tendency for adults to stop reading as much.

We were never told in the question whether or not forwarding Sara's number is wrong. What if Sara is a domestic terrorist? Would it still be laudible to help her? (yes)

This is why B is irrelevant (we cant judge laudability because we were never told whether or not the action of passing on sara's number is "wrong")

Same reason why AC (C) is also irrelevant. It gives us an extra conclusion (it's not wrong to give sara's number off) which is never mentioned in the premise.

tsm! TSM! TSM!

Such a lame question. But it's right to catch you. As future lawyers who are expected to question every detail, we'd all get fired if we mistakenly assumed flash pastuerization and intensive pasteurization to be the same thing.

interested, dm me

#help

For Question 6, I crossed out answer E because it thought it was a typical LSAT trap question.

Just because the New Urbanist neighborhood requires community venues within walking distance of houses, doesnt mean you need more community venues to serve the houses. Cant you just move the houses to fit more of them within walking distance of the venues?

Cant you, say... stack the houses vertically? or idk whatever Tetris them, squish them all up MC Escher style. Unironically, what if you have like houses built ontop of eachother by some magic construction material in the future.... these will be communities with all the requirements set out by those new urbanists no? And this is all done without increasing the per capita grocery stores?

Also, I'm not doing this b/c i disagree with the answer (actually well now that I think about it... with my current mindset i kinda do), I'm doing this because JY advocates this kind of thinking regarding trap answers. How do I stop myself from making this mistake?