(C) REALLY tripped me up. I jumped on "nonresistent plants injected with salicyclic acid" If they are being injected with it, can't we infer they did not originally possess this acid? I know they can simply raise their levels, but with the way it's worded in the stimulus it does not seem t...

(B) is a brutal trap. "Overturning" is too strong and unsupported.

To add to (B): How do we know that courses that don't include these histories of Africa/Asia do NOT have students that study abroad? This AC tells us something that these new courses are doing, but we can't make the assumption that the old courses didn't have kids going to study abroad. We need to m...

B, C, and D can be eliminated fairly quickly, as they have no relevance to the conclusion that pollution (or something else) is somehow connected to the disappearance of the seals. (E) gives reason to believe that the seals aren't disappearing due to pollution or some other reason, but rather that t...

Great explanation Noah! I just want to add about (E), that the conclusion has "may". This element of uncertainty in the conclusion does not match up with the stimulus, which is much more definitive: "she will NOT be making any publicity appearances in London".

The other thing about (A): even if the behavior was affected by his presence, couldn't it be for some reason that they ate LESS insects because of his presence? Maybe his presence had insects running away and they couldn't feast on them. Any time you can see that an AC can go both way (you're unsure...

"should" is an important word in (B) and a reason it could be eliminated. The jurist never introduces a course of action or what "should" be done, he simply describes what must be the case in society.

Keeping it simple on these questions is the best approach. (A): Clearly, this isn't something the argument is trying to discredit. Eliminate. (B): It is an intermediate conclusion, but it isn't supporting the claim of "TV should be thought of as nothing more than a 'toaster with pictures'"...

(A): Ants could forage in the afternoon in places where the temperature does not exceed 112 degrees, such as the midwest in the United States. Further, they could even forage in the afternoon where these temperatures DO exceed 112 degrees, they would just have a hard time returning back to their nes...

Could somebody go over why (C) is correct and why (D) is not? My big problem with (C) is that it seems unsupported that climate fluctuations would result in less accurate results, just that the fluctuations may cause the results to be accurate for a lesser period of time, such as 200,000 years compa...

What is a good reason to eliminate E? I was thinking that maybe they could still dress the same way and that this is consistent with the argument that this is genetic and not subject to environmental influences? Another possible reason, that maybe non identical twins could develop similar beliefs, t...

Great explanation Noah. After eliminating A through D, (E) really jumped off the page after a few seconds. Very simply, if there is an emergency funding protecting uninsured people, WHY would people choose to purchase insurance in the first place? Why would they pay for insurance when they would be ...

(B): is wrong because maybe 99/100 foods are unsalted when put into the microwave, and 1/100 are salted and thus increase chances of poisoning. If we were to NEVER use Microwaves again, couldn't more people get poisoned by NOT using microwaves instead of benefitted by it? Sure, it could help the 1 p...

Tough question! The argument goes on to talk about the mind and immune system being linked, and how the marrow/spleen works to produce white blood cells, and how the marrow/spleen is connected to the brain. It further states white cell activity is stimulated by good behavior. (a): It is unsupported ...

The word "CAN" really threw me off with this question. If the pills "can" relieve your headache, you can't infer that it necessarily will. Yet looking at answer choices B and C, both seem to assume that the pills will, in fact, relieve the headache. The earliest LSATs do not seem...

Two most tempting ACs were (D) and (E) (D): Do all of the seats in the city council have to be filled by new people in order to shake up membership? Couldn't some, or most of these seats be filled but not all of them? If the Democrats control the House 55% to 45%, SOME seats filled by Republicans ca...

To eliminate (A): can't infer this because Joan's friends COULD in fact be experts on the physiology of smell, just not "one of the world's foremost experts". Therefore you cannot infer this. (C) is correct because we know none of her friends like Aurora smell as much as other perfumes, wh...

I chose B by process of elimination but really took a long time on this question during my PT. Really a good example of how you can eliminate 4 crappy AC's to arrive at the right answer, even if you do not fully understand it on your first go through. I will try my hand at explaining this question. ...

I chose D as well and got it incorrect when I took this PT. After reviewing it however, I can identify a good reason why D is incorrect. Even if D is true, does it have to be true that the animal in particular has to suffer from the disease? Couldn't one non suffering deer in a herd of 100 cause the...

An even simpler reason to eliminate D: can we infer that low levels of pollution is an activity that poses risk to life? Maybe for animals but the stimulus is specifically about humans. Also we don't know that just because everyone mutually benefits from inexpensive travel, that they voluntarily cho...