Hi, I'm having a problem seeing why C is a good answer. To me, we don't need to know that the animals will not get entangled before the rings dissolve - what if it gets stuck on their tails? They won't suffocate from that; he doesn't cite a one-to-one ratio of getting entangled --> suffocating. I...

My concern is that choice E entails a classic LSAT pitfall: we have to assume that the arrowheads weren't already part of the spear. Can anyone help me find the evidence is that it was [b]developed[b] during the late Bronze Age? Am I reading the question wrong? I'm really cautious about answers to S...

When we see "should" in the conclusion, can we still use conditional logic to express it? I think so, right? The problem is, if we express this conclusion as -c --> -f (contrapositive f-->c), answer choice C looks really attractive to me! (D) says there might be a different reason fo...

Hi! Could someone please help talk me out of answer (E)? I'm very partial to it because of the first sentence. Classic pitfall, I know, but here's my thinking: Bob turns to Joe and says, "Until four years ago, I was a banker!" Smarty pants Joe surmises that Bob is no longer a banker. LSAT ...

Thanks, guys!

Especially for going the extra mile to clean up that Strengthen/Inference train wreck I had going on there, tommywallach:)

Quick question: When the passages uses "may" in its hypothesis, should we assume that Q21 is interpreting this as "will"? Otherwise the hypothesis as written gives lots of wiggle room, ie, it doesn't say for certain that the high photosynthetic plants will lose the advantage to l...

I know this is an old post, but I'll give a crack at the explanation. Hopefully here we can see why (B), (C), and (D) contribute to an explanation. (A) is suspicious because it requires us to assume that driving faster is more dangerous, and that drivers are not all following the old speed limits. T...

For this question I chose (B) because (E) didn't seem directly supported by the passage. In line 30 or so it specifically says "partial determinant of an individual's actions," but it's not directly referring to contingencies, it's referring to the structures formed from these contingencie...

I'm testing out a theory that actually worked for this question, so I'll share and I'd love to hear some MLSAT feedback :0) The previous poster's reasoning for eliminating (E) is terrific, but I came at it another way. My theory is that when you have two really attractive answer choices but reading ...

The answer has a mistaken reversal though, right? Whereas the original doesn't. That's the kind of thing that would normally be a red flag on the LSAT, so why is it ok here?

Sorry to resurrect another old post...i just don't want to get questions like this wrong again;)

I chose (E) because the way in which Marshall chose the plaintiffs was necessarily subjective - he had to evaluate their emotional appeal, etc., which I can't picture anyone doing objectively. What am I missing?

Thanks!

Can you show how (E) violates the first sentence? I pictured restrictions as rules (like "must include surgeon general's warning"), not as limitations on where and how often the ads occur. If restrictions actually refer to the latter, and exclude the former possibility, it would make sense...

M problem with this one was maybe similar to chike_eze's. If I think of "authenticated" as distinct from sealing a document, everything makes sense. Authenticating (say, notarizing) something would mean using the seal over and over again, or maybe keeping the seal in a museum because of th...

Would someone mind posting the argument core?

Thank you!