Recent #HELP Requests
Still don't get why B is the correct answer choice. The statement only mention the heart's health. Why are we even bringing in overall health? Whereas C presents the bad health consequences that come with drinking coffee that actually harms the heart. Isn't that more relevant? #help
How does AC B not establish that Matilde isn't buying it just for the investment alone? It doesn't state that she is intrigued by any other reason. In my opinion, AC B is a close contender for the right answer choice next to E.
#help if you fail the sufficient for J, making it go from J to /J, then couldn't technically K be placed with J since the rule falls away?
Am I correct in assuming that "main conclusion" and "main point" questions are actually different, if barely?
It seems that every time I get a question that asks specifically for the MC, I can find the MC stated verbatim (or close enough) among the answer choices. Main point questions, on the other hand, seem to want me to almost combine the MC and the context in order to find the correct answer.
Am I just overthinking?
At 5:54 when J.Y is explaining why there are 3 possibilities for PP and RR to be placed on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, instead of 4 possibilities, can someone explain why the two places J.Y mentioned are the same thing? I don't understand how the two places he mentioned mean the same thing. #help
TO BE CLEAR, A AND C ARE INCORRECT BECAUSE THEY ARE PREDICTIONS OF THE FUTURE WHICH CANNOT BE A MUST BE TRUE, RIGHT? THEREFORE, WHEN AN AC IS A PREDICTION OF THE FUTURE, IT IS RULED AS INCORRECT? #help#feedback
Wait, how did "R sits in the same row as Q or S or both" turn into "R sits adjacent to Q or S or both?"
I'm still confused about #16 - could someone explain why when T is in the fall V does not have to be in the fall? Does the contrapositive not occur?
How does A strengthen? If Larocque seemingly never used orpiment as it is not in any of his paintings, and A says his students didn't use techniques that he didn't use, isn't that implying that the students wouldn't use orpiment because Larocque clearly didn't use orpiment? Or is using orpiment not a technique at all? #help
#help. Why is the conclusion in #4 the second sentence? I assumed it would be "there has been a decline in home energy consumption". and the premise (aka, evidence) would be because of the "reduced standards of living and changes in the way people spend their time." ?
Doesn't premise support conclusion = conclusion because evidence?
I’m confused- why can't it be the case that the premise is functioning as a specific example to support a general conclusion? So perhaps in some remote places when currency collapses they revert to their original bartering system, but it’s not claiming what the conclusion says which is that bartering came before currency for all of civilization.
Maybe it’s known via oral tradition that bartering was the original way in these communities, so when he says in the premise that it reverted, it's not because he is assuming the conclusion that bartering comes before currency in general, rather he’s just stating in these specific cases we have bartering before currency, and because of that we might think it models what happened with civilization as a whole. #help
For Q17. How is B wrong? The last two paragraphs speak on criticality with sandpile. The last paragraph explicitly states that when a grain of sand is added, the chance for a "catastrophic" can take place.
Rule three really stomped me. It says, "R runs an earlier leg of the race than P." I thought this meant that R had to be exactly one spot before the P?? I thought "an" implied exactly one? Should I start assuming that if the LSAT doesn't specify "exactly one" then they don't intend for me to interpret the rule as such? #help
How can we conclude that "all of George's Ukrainian relatives" = "a lot of people"? Perhaps all of George's Ukrainian relatives only consist of two individuals (which generally isn't considered a lot)? I understand why the other answer choices are all incorrect.
#help (added by Admin)
#help I chose C initially, although, switched to B during BR. See the way I'm interpreting B says that if the children learn the technology now, and adapt to technology as it progresses, it will therefor, not be pointless. I thought maybe I'm assuming too much but given the answer choice says "adapting to technology AS it advances"
I just do not understand how question #2 is just stating facts and not considered an argument. What are the key indicators of this?
#help (added by Admin)
That's what I also got, but I thought that Keisha was pointing out to Tony, "why did you include those 38 people(other ideologies) in the comparison?" meaning, "you should have included only 5 people(anarchists) to the comparison." I thought E was exactly pointing out this point. What is wrong with my reasoning? #help #HELP #HELLP
when G is in 1, why does I have to be in 2? Is it not possible to have H in 4 and H again in 2?
Edited: nevermind - figured it out because no I in 1
Same #help. I thought it was a trick since plants is much broader than just trees. Even though photosynthesis is a function of plants, how would we know that just from the passage?
For the rule check, Question 18, how can we be so sure to get rid of B C and D that quickly? Isn't it possible that J is in Tuscany as a writers assistant? #help
This answer confuses me because the premise leads me to assume that out of both large cars and small cars that get into car accidents those in the small cars are more likely to get injured. Question D would be assuming that the evidence is that small cars get into more accidents which is why they have more injuries but how do we jump to that assumption??
"Most closely conforms to the principle" is not the same as "similar logical structure" right? I solved it as the latter and I think that is where I got confused and chose C
on LSAT 24 – Section 2 – Question 01