The Official September 2016 Study Group - WAKE ME UP WHEN SEPTEMBER ENDS Forum

[mimmsy]

Mostly lurking, using LSAT Trainer/7sage/LG Bible, enjoying seeing everyone's input. PTing and improving, one day at a time. I work full-time so it's a little less involved than everyone else but I'm trying to get 2 PTs in per week. Anyone else working full-time 40+ hr weeks and getting it in?

[34iplaw]

Mostly lurking, using LSAT Trainer/7sage/LG Bible, enjoying seeing everyone's input. PTing and improving, one day at a time. I work full-time so it's a little less involved than everyone else but I'm trying to get 2 PTs in per week. Anyone else working full-time 40+ hr weeks and getting it in?

I took a break from work to study for the LSAT, but I'm in kind of a super unusual situation in that regard. Still doing my little eBay side thing...but that's mostly waiting for stuff to sell at this point. Stopped getting inventory for that. Hopefully, it will clear out in the fall. LSAT is sort of a reset or pause for me as twisted as that may seem. If I do as well as I hope expect to, I'm planning to leave what I do now and work or intern for 8-10 months in some more legal capacity than what I do now... probably more on the public side. Some girls I know from HS have dads that are judges, DA ADA type deals, and one is a congressman. I think that I can get an internship with one of them fairly easily. If not, I'll get the legal firm that represents the company I work for now to give me some form of internship or something. I'm lucky enough that some of what I do may actually be useful to them beyond just working as an assistant type deal.

[Deardevil]

Hey guys! New to TLS and this thread. Wishing you all the best of luck. I decided to do the four-week plan for the LSAT Trainer and pick the best course of action after that. Hoping I won't have to blow too much money on additional materials. Currently have the Trainer, 7sage, and 10 Actual LSAT tests.

Finished Lesson 9 today in the Trainer, and I just find the LR section incredibly annoying for a simple reason: the whole concept is just too subjective, despite Mike Kim insisting otherwise. Hope this goes away with time, but I doubt it. I find myself reading a stimulus, understanding it, and not feeling confident about any of the answer choices. They just don't strike me as answering the question prompt, and I don't feel confident for practice tests. How can I improve my speed if I can't narrow down a correct response with ease? Any help would be much appreciated.

What's up, King?

As Barack says, I also think you should go with an eight-week or 12-week schedule. I believe Mike Kim would also suggest the same.
Of course, you are not required to follow it religiously; I'm not. At the end of the day, follow what suits you.

Unfortunately, the reality is that you pretty much have to spend some dough on the studying.
You're still in the early stages of LR, so it's good to struggle. You'll get familiar in due time. If you must, get Manhattan LR.
In the answer choices, there are obvious wrong answers most of the time; maybe it's because they're irrelevant or out of scope.
Process of elimination can be your best friend in logical reasoning because you don't necessarily have to prove that a right answer is correct;
you simply need to prove that the remaining choices are indubitably incorrect. Again, practice more and you will eventually get the hang of it all.

You're not supposed to feel confident for PTs yet, but on that subject, you need MORE. Like, way more. 10 ain't enough.
Get ALL of them. Or, at the very least, the most recent ones from 51 and onward.
Don't worry about speed just yet. You should look to improve accuracy; start out untimed, then progress to timed when you're hitting the mark.

Good luck to you as well.

Yeah - I understand that everyone is in different financial situations and has different law school targets and post-grad goals, but, at the same time, skimp on other things and cut corners where you can on other things. You're talking about a test that could determine whether you make $40K your first year out or $180K your first year out and whether you pay full sticker or get a $50k/yr scholarship. It's not the place to cut corners. It's really hard to overstress how important this test is. This isn't the time to weigh a decision on buying a prep book that could net you 2-3 points [1 point even] and $30-$50. I'm not trying to advocate every book that you'll never use, but, if you reasonably suspect a book will help you, get it and don't look back. If LG are a challenge, I fully recommend PowerScore Bible followed by Manhattan LSAT LG. I haven't touched my PowerScore LR, and I'm sort of perusing Manhattan LSAT as I go through my course time permitting [or struggling with a concept].

Wholeheartedly agree on accuracy before speed. Speed comes with accuracy and confidence. Accuracy does not come with speed... i.e. you aren't going to get faster or more accurate by just focusing solely on speed. The other benefit is that you will notice questions and patterns repeat... even in LR. TBH, I haven't been doing this that often, and, sometimes, I could swear that I have already done a question, but it wasn't featured on any of the prep tests or other materials that I have done. It's really bizarre. One example that comes to mind is, "This dude sucks at his job, but does he really suck?" type idea. You'll also notice common tricks for creating wrong answers through weird language which can save you tons of times when you inevitably hit a question with two answers that look good, but one is wrong because it says "only" or "primary" or "sole" or some generic pedantic stuff like that.

Yup, you really have to put books and tuition/salary on a scale, and you'll find that the latter will break it when compared to the former.

Man, LR is so fun in that sense... You can just intuitively sniff out the BS, so to speak. I've definitely had moments when I've said
"Nuclear waste? Vervet monkeys? Hospital patients? I seem to have done this problem before..."
Everything is so recycled that, even if it's unfamiliar, it sorta just is.

[Deardevil]

the fish abnormalities question was KILLER (LR)

This sounds like fun. So far away, though. :[

[Justice4Birdperson]

Hey guys! New to TLS and this thread. Wishing you all the best of luck. I decided to do the four-week plan for the LSAT Trainer and pick the best course of action after that. Hoping I won't have to blow too much money on additional materials. Currently have the Trainer, 7sage, and 10 Actual LSAT tests.

Finished Lesson 9 today in the Trainer, and I just find the LR section incredibly annoying for a simple reason: the whole concept is just too subjective, despite Mike Kim insisting otherwise. Hope this goes away with time, but I doubt it. I find myself reading a stimulus, understanding it, and not feeling confident about any of the answer choices. They just don't strike me as answering the question prompt, and I don't feel confident for practice tests. How can I improve my speed if I can't narrow down a correct response with ease? Any help would be much appreciated.

For any given question I find that at least 3 ACs are obviously wrong and can be eliminated quickly. So then usually it's down to 2 choices. But the LSAT makers have definite patterns in how they try to trick people. The key is to practice enough in order to understand those tricks and spot them quickly.

[Mikey]

yo what's good with all these people PMing me in the past 2 days asking me for my LSAT materials

[Deardevil]

yo what's good with all these people PMing me in the past 2 days asking me for my LSAT materials

And then you were like, "nah, fam."

Savage.

[PhiladelphiaCollins]

I don't think there's anything more frustrating then changing a correct answer to a wrong answer in B.R.

Just did that for 2 questions. God. Damnit. It was so stupid too. I have got to read more carefully for LR.

My rule is that unless the right answer is glaringly obvious, I won't change it. More often than not, you're overthinking it.

Exactly Sweet! Fuckin Exactly! I sat there during BR for like 3 minutes and thinking back had no GOOD reason to change it. I must have convinced myself the other one I was on the fence about was right. I'm just going to look at it as a learned experience. Next time, thank to your advice, I won't change it unless it is glaringly obvious. Got to stop overthinking it when I know I'm right.

Yeah that's how I'm going about it now too. Unless I overwhelmingly have a reason to change it (whether it's LR or RC) I just won't do it on a whim or a hunch.

[Mikey]

yo what's good with all these people PMing me in the past 2 days asking me for my LSAT materials

And then you were like, "nah, fam."

Savage.

Lol, I mean if I didn't need my stuff anymore then I would sell/give them away but ya boy bombed June, rip.

[34iplaw]

I'm starting to actually maybe like questions with number issues, as you can predict the answer before it shows up...

like... I just had a weaken question about not needing to train more pilots since there are 400 people on the waitlist and five competitors with the need for roughly 100 each. Before I even read another word, I'm like, 'well, yeah that's a problem b/c it's the same 400 people.' Find it in answer choice A and move on.

[Deardevil]

but ya boy bombed June, rip.

You got this, bruh. NYU, baby!!!

Okay, so this problem has been giving me problems,
for anyone who wants to attempt s/t from the fith PT:

[+] Spoiler

Craters caused by meteors smashing into Earth are found in the GREATEST DENSITY in geologically stable regions.
This greater abundance in stable regions MUST be explained by the lower rates of destructive geophysical processes in those regions.

The conclusion is properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) A meteorite that strikes exactly the same spot as an earlier meteorite will obliterate all traces of the earlier impact.
(B) Rates of destructive geophysical processes within any given region vary markedly throughout geological time.
(C) The rate at which the Earth is struck by meteorites has greatly increased in geologically recent times.
(D) Actual meteorite impacts have been scattered fairly evenly over the Earth’s surface in the course of Earth’s geological history.
(E) The Earth’s geologically stable regions have been studied more intensively by geologists than have its less stable regions.

Thoughts? Gonna get lunch before I come back to this one. BRB.

[34iplaw]

but ya boy bombed June, rip.

You got this, bruh. NYU, baby!!!

Okay, so this problem has been giving me problems,
for anyone who wants to attempt s/t from the fith PT:

[+] Spoiler

Craters caused by meteors smashing into Earth are found in the GREATEST DENSITY in geologically stable regions.
This greater abundance in stable regions MUST be explained by the lower rates of destructive geophysical processes in those regions.

The conclusion is properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) A meteorite that strikes exactly the same spot as an earlier meteorite will obliterate all traces of the earlier impact.
(B) Rates of destructive geophysical processes within any given region vary markedly throughout geological time.
(C) The rate at which the Earth is struck by meteorites has greatly increased in geologically recent times.
(D) Actual meteorite impacts have been scattered fairly evenly over the Earth’s surface in the course of Earth’s geological history.
(E) The Earth’s geologically stable regions have been studied more intensively by geologists than have its less stable regions.

Thoughts? Gonna get lunch before I come back to this one. BRB.

I haven't gotten to this type, but I'll take a stab...

[+] Spoiler

Meteors smashing into earth have greatest density in geologically stable regions because the lower rates of destructive geophysical processes in those regions. It seems to rely on the assumption that meteors are distributed evenly.

[A] doesn't seem to make sense... there would be no difference in meteor crater density depending on impact rates then... 1000 impacts would look the same as 1.
like [A] doesn't seem to make sense to me... this would remove any reliability in the conclusion drawn in the stimulus. An area could have previously been slammed and doesn't have active processes now, but it previously did...
[C] doesn't seem particularly relevant to me. We're concerned about distribution.
[D] sort of seems to be exactly what I was looking for before even looking through the choices.
[E] doesn't seem to be particularly relevant to me. It's not terribly relevant whether they have been discovered or not.

I would pick [D], and I would be pretty confident in doing so. I'm unfamiliar with this question type though, but I approached it kind of as a weaken question [which could be the wrong strategy for this question type]. Basically, I figured if the opposite of [D] was true - i.e. meteors *only* hit one part of earth - it would completely wreck the reasoning that observed greater density is because of lower rates of destructive geophysical processes in those regions.

Edit: Is this from June 07 or December 03/10? Or a prep book? I'm fairly certain I've done this question or something remarkably similar.

[Deardevil]

I haven't gotten to this type, but I'll take a stab...

[+] Spoiler

Meteors smashing into earth have greatest density in geologically stable regions because the lower rates of destructive geophysical processes in those regions. It seems to rely on the assumption that meteors are distributed evenly.

[A] doesn't seem to make sense... there would be no difference in meteor crater density depending on impact rates then... 1000 impacts would look the same as 1.
like [A] doesn't seem to make sense to me... this would remove any reliability in the conclusion drawn in the stimulus. An area could have previously been slammed and doesn't have active processes now, but it previously did...
[C] doesn't seem particularly relevant to me. We're concerned about distribution.
[D] sort of seems to be exactly what I was looking for before even looking through the choices.
[E] doesn't seem to be particularly relevant to me. It's not terribly relevant whether they have been discovered or not.

I would pick [D], and I would be pretty confident in doing so. I'm unfamiliar with this question type though, but I approached it kind of as a weaken question [which could be the wrong strategy for this question type]. Basically, I figured if the opposite of [D] was true - i.e. meteors *only* hit one part of earth - it would completely wreck the reasoning that observed greater density is because of lower rates of destructive geophysical processes in those regions.

Impeccable prephrase.

[+] Spoiler

D is the answer, but I'm still missing the why... I can easily eliminate B, C, and E.
I initially chose A because I thought a higher density comes from more impacts on the same spot,
which leads to practically no destruction, but then I dun goofed and misinterpreted it...
It makes no sense for the reason you stated; 1000 would still be the same as one.

This is classified as sufficient assumption due to the keywords "if" and "assumed."
Anyhoo, why must there be an assumption that meteors are distributed evenly? I'm missing that part.
So craters are denser because there are lower rates of earthquakes or volcanic eruptions.
Not sure where the even distribution plays a role...

June 1992, actually.

[legallyadog]

I haven't gotten to this type, but I'll take a stab...

[+] Spoiler

Meteors smashing into earth have greatest density in geologically stable regions because the lower rates of destructive geophysical processes in those regions. It seems to rely on the assumption that meteors are distributed evenly.

[A] doesn't seem to make sense... there would be no difference in meteor crater density depending on impact rates then... 1000 impacts would look the same as 1.
like [A] doesn't seem to make sense to me... this would remove any reliability in the conclusion drawn in the stimulus. An area could have previously been slammed and doesn't have active processes now, but it previously did...
[C] doesn't seem particularly relevant to me. We're concerned about distribution.
[D] sort of seems to be exactly what I was looking for before even looking through the choices.
[E] doesn't seem to be particularly relevant to me. It's not terribly relevant whether they have been discovered or not.

I would pick [D], and I would be pretty confident in doing so. I'm unfamiliar with this question type though, but I approached it kind of as a weaken question [which could be the wrong strategy for this question type]. Basically, I figured if the opposite of [D] was true - i.e. meteors *only* hit one part of earth - it would completely wreck the reasoning that observed greater density is because of lower rates of destructive geophysical processes in those regions.

Impeccable prephrase.

[+] Spoiler

D is the answer, but I'm still missing the why... I can easily eliminate B, C, and E.
I initially chose A because I thought a higher density comes from more impacts on the same spot,
which leads to practically no destruction, but then I dun goofed and misinterpreted it...
It makes no sense for the reason you stated; 1000 would still be the same as one.

This is classified as sufficient assumption due to the keywords "if" and "assumed."
Anyhoo, why must there be an assumption that meteors are distributed evenly? I'm missing that part.
So craters are denser because there are lower rates of earthquakes or volcanic eruptions.
Not sure where the even distribution plays a role...

June 1992, actually.

[+] Spoiler

My explanation for D would be that the stimulus says it MUST be because of the geological processes, not distribution or literally any other thing could have done it. This would mean that it would have to be even across the Earth for the geological process to HAVE to be the reason why some areas are filled with material and some aren't. Without it being even, then it doesn't have to be because of geological processes. It would be make it a CBT not a MBT like the stimulus wants.

Does that help?

[Mikey]

but ya boy bombed June, rip.

You got this, bruh. NYU, baby!!!

Okay, so this problem has been giving me problems,
for anyone who wants to attempt s/t from the fith PT:

[+] Spoiler

Craters caused by meteors smashing into Earth are found in the GREATEST DENSITY in geologically stable regions.
This greater abundance in stable regions MUST be explained by the lower rates of destructive geophysical processes in those regions.

The conclusion is properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) A meteorite that strikes exactly the same spot as an earlier meteorite will obliterate all traces of the earlier impact.
(B) Rates of destructive geophysical processes within any given region vary markedly throughout geological time.
(C) The rate at which the Earth is struck by meteorites has greatly increased in geologically recent times.
(D) Actual meteorite impacts have been scattered fairly evenly over the Earth’s surface in the course of Earth’s geological history.
(E) The Earth’s geologically stable regions have been studied more intensively by geologists than have its less stable regions.

Thoughts? Gonna get lunch before I come back to this one. BRB.

This one was kinda tough imo, but here it goes

[+] Spoiler

So the argument is saying that the reason for the greater amount of craters in stable regions, is and only is the fact that there's lower rates of destructive geophysical processes in the regions that have more craters. Now, at first I was like what, but when you really look at it, the argument is banking on the fact that they're comparing the locations greatest density to locations that are not.

It might not seem like the argument is comparing these locations, but think about it. If the locations with greater amounts of these craters was the ONLY location to have them, then the argument wouldn't make sense since the REASON for this greater amount of craters is due to lower rates of destructive geophysical processes. If there were no craters any where else in the world, this evidence would not be representative, or wouldn't even make sense.

A. Exactly the same spot as an earlier one? This has nothing to do with the argument.
B. Might be catchy at first but OVER TIME is what makes this wrong, who cares about what happens over time? The argument has nothing to do with it
C. Irrelevant
D. Is right for my explanation above. If there are no meteor impacts any where in the world, the evidence wouldn't really make sense. Now this obviously isn't a necessary assumption, but I'm just trying to explain why this answer would make the argument make sense. So if there's an even amount of meteor impact around earth, then the argument that is made for the difference (destructive geophysical whatever) can make sense.
E. Who cares who studied it

[Deardevil]

[+] Spoiler

My explanation for D would be that the stimulus says it MUST be because of the geological processes, not distribution or literally any other thing could have done it. This would mean that it would have to be even across the Earth for the geological process to HAVE to be the reason why some areas are filled with material and some aren't. Without it being even, then it doesn't have to be because of geological processes. It would be make it a CBT not a MBT like the stimulus wants.

Does that help?

OH, I see. Because it has to be geological processes, there needs to be a "level playing field." Makes sense!

Still a weird problem, but expected. Thank you, guys.

[legallyadog]

OH, I see. Because it has to be geological processes, there needs to be a "level playing field." Makes sense!

Still a weird problem, but expected. Thank you, guys.

Glad I could help!

[dietcoke1]

.

[Deardevil]

Oh my goodness, people. This question [stem]...

[+] Spoiler

M: It's almost impossible to find a person between ages 85 and 90 who primarily uses the left hand.
Q: 70-90 years ago, children were punished for using their left hands to eat or to write and were forced to use right hands.

Q’s response serves to counter any use by M of the evidence about 85 to 90 year olds in support of which one of the following hypotheses?

(A) Being born right-handed confers a survival advantage.
(B) Societal attitudes toward handedness differ at different times.
(C) Forcing a person to switch from a preferred hand is harmless.
(D) Handedness is a product of both genetic predisposition and social pressures.
(E) Physical habits learned in school often persist in old age.

At first, it seemed straightforward, and I went with E,
then realized "school" isn't mentioned, so it might actually be B or D, but even those don't cut it.
This is one of those extremely rare cases of terribly worded STEMS. Tell me this is not on the LSAT...

[Mikey]

Redid that LG section w/ a circular game. First 3 games were done and my time was at 22 minutes. The circular game literally made me finish 35 mins on the dot (13 mins). I went -0, although I have done this section before but obviously worked everything out. I really want to get this circular game's time down, does anyone know what other circular games there are?

[legallyadog]

Took my first timed LR section since studying for June. Went -4 which is okay. Not my worst, not my best. Glad I'm not super rusty and gonna go type up explanations for the rest of the day.

[34iplaw]

C-c-c-combo post.

Woops.

Edit: Going to adaptive re-use this post...

Oh my goodness, people. This question [stem]...

[+] Spoiler

M: It's almost impossible to find a person between ages 85 and 90 who primarily uses the left hand.
Q: 70-90 years ago, children were punished for using their left hands to eat or to write and were forced to use right hands.

Q’s response serves to counter any use by M of the evidence about 85 to 90 year olds in support of which one of the following hypotheses?

(A) Being born right-handed confers a survival advantage.
(B) Societal attitudes toward handedness differ at different times.
(C) Forcing a person to switch from a preferred hand is harmless.
(D) Handedness is a product of both genetic predisposition and social pressures.
(E) Physical habits learned in school often persist in old age.

At first, it seemed straightforward, and I went with E,
then realized "school" isn't mentioned, so it might actually be B or D, but even those don't cut it.
This is one of those extremely rare cases of terribly worded STEMS. Tell me this is not on the LSAT...

My thoughts...

[+] Spoiler

I read it...thought I was nuts because I thought D & E kind of sucked... I definitely did not read the question that carefully though... going back through now having re-read the question. We want a hypothesis that is barred from being true by this... is the answer A? The statement offers another reason for why people are right handed.

E is supported by his statement somewhat.
D is also supported by such a statement.
C I think remains wrong for the same reasons as I did initially... we don't know about harm....it could be beneficial...
B I don't think a snapshot can prove or disprove this.

I probably would have picked D on a test, but I'm trying to answer this under the assumption that, based on what you said, B D & E are wrong. I also did reread it, as I felt that, for what I *thought* the question was asking, that D & E were both inadequate. If that's the case, I had to have misread the prompt/question.

[34iplaw]

I haven't gotten to this type, but I'll take a stab...

[+] Spoiler

Meteors smashing into earth have greatest density in geologically stable regions because the lower rates of destructive geophysical processes in those regions. It seems to rely on the assumption that meteors are distributed evenly.

[A] doesn't seem to make sense... there would be no difference in meteor crater density depending on impact rates then... 1000 impacts would look the same as 1.
like [A] doesn't seem to make sense to me... this would remove any reliability in the conclusion drawn in the stimulus. An area could have previously been slammed and doesn't have active processes now, but it previously did...
[C] doesn't seem particularly relevant to me. We're concerned about distribution.
[D] sort of seems to be exactly what I was looking for before even looking through the choices.
[E] doesn't seem to be particularly relevant to me. It's not terribly relevant whether they have been discovered or not.

I would pick [D], and I would be pretty confident in doing so. I'm unfamiliar with this question type though, but I approached it kind of as a weaken question [which could be the wrong strategy for this question type]. Basically, I figured if the opposite of [D] was true - i.e. meteors *only* hit one part of earth - it would completely wreck the reasoning that observed greater density is because of lower rates of destructive geophysical processes in those regions.

Impeccable prephrase.

[+] Spoiler

D is the answer, but I'm still missing the why... I can easily eliminate B, C, and E.
I initially chose A because I thought a higher density comes from more impacts on the same spot,
which leads to practically no destruction, but then I dun goofed and misinterpreted it...
It makes no sense for the reason you stated; 1000 would still be the same as one.

This is classified as sufficient assumption due to the keywords "if" and "assumed."
Anyhoo, why must there be an assumption that meteors are distributed evenly? I'm missing that part.
So craters are denser because there are lower rates of earthquakes or volcanic eruptions.
Not sure where the even distribution plays a role...

June 1992, actually.

Haha, thanks. That's always the best - isn't it? I'm fairly certain I have the right choice but was that the correct approach to the question do you think? I haven't done this Q type yet.

Slowly coming to the realization that I will join this group. Wasn't planning on taking the LSAT a third time but I still feel as though I can do better.

What's the game plan for those that scored in the high 160s and are retaking? Too early to start PTing again?

I've been reading the Trainer's take on RC, as that is what I need the most work on, and I think I like it better than Blueprint's strategy. Nice and simple.

It kind of depends how you prepared before and where you're missing points. I think you can score in the high 160s without a great understanding of logic or underlying concepts, so it's important to make you have those on lock. That's why I'm so tedious right now about making sure I try to understand everything that I miss... I don't want a weaker foundation to limit my score improving from a 163 to a 168 rather than a 163 to a 172+.

but ya boy bombed June, rip.

You got this, bruh. NYU, baby!!!

Okay, so this problem has been giving me problems,
for anyone who wants to attempt s/t from the fith PT:

[+] Spoiler

Craters caused by meteors smashing into Earth are found in the GREATEST DENSITY in geologically stable regions.
This greater abundance in stable regions MUST be explained by the lower rates of destructive geophysical processes in those regions.

The conclusion is properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) A meteorite that strikes exactly the same spot as an earlier meteorite will obliterate all traces of the earlier impact.
(B) Rates of destructive geophysical processes within any given region vary markedly throughout geological time.
(C) The rate at which the Earth is struck by meteorites has greatly increased in geologically recent times.
(D) Actual meteorite impacts have been scattered fairly evenly over the Earth’s surface in the course of Earth’s geological history.
(E) The Earth’s geologically stable regions have been studied more intensively by geologists than have its less stable regions.

Thoughts? Gonna get lunch before I come back to this one. BRB.

This one was kinda tough imo, but here it goes

[+] Spoiler

So the argument is saying that the reason for the greater amount of craters in stable regions, is and only is the fact that there's lower rates of destructive geophysical processes in the regions that have more craters. Now, at first I was like what, but when you really look at it, the argument is banking on the fact that they're comparing the locations greatest density to locations that are not.

It might not seem like the argument is comparing these locations, but think about it. If the locations with greater amounts of these craters was the ONLY location to have them, then the argument wouldn't make sense since the REASON for this greater amount of craters is due to lower rates of destructive geophysical processes. If there were no craters any where else in the world, this evidence would not be representative, or wouldn't even make sense.

A. Exactly the same spot as an earlier one? This has nothing to do with the argument.
B. Might be catchy at first but OVER TIME is what makes this wrong, who cares about what happens over time? The argument has nothing to do with it
C. Irrelevant
D. Is right for my explanation above. If there are no meteor impacts any where in the world, the evidence wouldn't really make sense. Now this obviously isn't a necessary assumption, but I'm just trying to explain why this answer would make the argument make sense. So if there's an even amount of meteor impact around earth, then the argument that is made for the difference (destructive geophysical whatever) can make sense.
E. Who cares who studied it

I'd check some of my explanations. I'm not an expert by any means, but I think you can eliminate some choices for far stronger reasons than being irrelevant [again though, I'm sort of approaching this from having only done MBT, Argument/Role, and Weaken so I'd actually appreciate any insight if my approach to this question is wrong!]. I'm fairly confident that [A] is actually quite relevant and is actually contradictory to the conclusion if it were true. It's an interesting answer choice I think, as it would basically remove the possibility of the difference ever being observable.

[CoGar]

Quick question for anyone involved in TestMasters...


Why am I having so much trouble with the homework for Sufficent-Nesseasry relationships - the focus is on diagramming the stim, then reading the stem and answering the questions, but I'm left trying to do way too muc, confused by how to approach the question and almost feel like I'm doing much worse already than going into the class (specifically limited to sufficient-necessary questions)

I feel like Lesson 1 should be one of the easier ones for obvious reasons but I just dont know.... would someone, anyone mind throwing some advice my way.

Thanks

[Deardevil]

Oh my goodness, people. This question [stem]...

[+] Spoiler

M: It's almost impossible to find a person between ages 85 and 90 who primarily uses the left hand.
Q: 70-90 years ago, children were punished for using their left hands to eat or to write and were forced to use right hands.

Q’s response serves to counter any use by M of the evidence about 85 to 90 year olds in support of which one of the following hypotheses?

(A) Being born right-handed confers a survival advantage.
(B) Societal attitudes toward handedness differ at different times.
(C) Forcing a person to switch from a preferred hand is harmless.
(D) Handedness is a product of both genetic predisposition and social pressures.
(E) Physical habits learned in school often persist in old age.

At first, it seemed straightforward, and I went with E,
then realized "school" isn't mentioned, so it might actually be B or D, but even those don't cut it.
This is one of those extremely rare cases of terribly worded STEMS. Tell me this is not on the LSAT...

My thoughts...

[+] Spoiler

I read it...thought I was nuts because I thought D & E kind of sucked... I definitely did not read the question that carefully though... going back through now having re-read the question. We want a hypothesis that is barred from being true by this... is the answer A? The statement offers another reason for why people are right handed.

E is supported by his statement somewhat.
D is also supported by such a statement.
C I think remains wrong for the same reasons as I did initially... we don't know about harm....it could be beneficial...
B I don't think a snapshot can prove or disprove this.

I probably would have picked D on a test, but I'm trying to answer this under the assumption that, based on what you said, B D & E are wrong.

My thought process was this:

[+] Spoiler

"Montreal" says he doesn't notice many left-handed old people.
"Quebec" claims that, when they were kids, they were forced to use their right hands.
This led me to think "oh, maybe by being so used to being right-handed, they lost the ability to be left-handed,
assuming they're not ambidextrous, but even if they were, they use their right hands more."
This matches E in the sense that old habits persist; can't teach an old dog new tricks, basically.
But nowhere does the stimulus state that they're forced to use their right hands during SCHOOL.

D suggests social pressure, which seems to align quite nicely, but GENES? I don't think so.
C is weird. Harmless to switch? Sure. Maybe the punishments don't involve whipping or something; we don't really care.
Same with B. Does nothing, really. Finally, there's A... I wouldn't have chosen it if I hadn't gone back to the question stem.
Why would we be concerned with survival advantage? Hold on a sec...
I thought the stem asks for what evidence Quebec is using to rebut Montreal, but NO;
the stem is really asking "Quebec is responding to Montreal's HYPOTHESIS, which is which one of the following?"
In essence, we're looking for the AC that relates to Montreal, not Quebec.
Montreal asserts that perhaps left-handed people can't reach 85, thus being right-handed is considered a survival advantage.