Annie Banks might be the hardest-working person I have ever met. Well, my grandparents worked in orchards and factories and the like, so maybe I should revise that. Annie works harder than any other bright, educated, relatively privileged young person I know. I mean that as an enormous compliment. My grandpa, Herb Fox, (yes, Herb... he's from Oklahoma, and he wears overalls every single day, what of it) didn't have any choice but to bust his ass picking peaches when he arrived in Modesto from the Dust Bowl with a sixth grade education and zero dollars. You want a roof over your head? Pick those peaches. Annie has lots of choices, with her B.S. in math and her M.Ed from UCLA... shit, she's got nothing but choices. She could easily zone out into air-conditioned complacency. But nobody gets the job done like Annie. She killed the LSAT, she applied to law school like a boss, and she's substitute taught my LSAT class for me. I've had tons of smart students before, but if I ever need a lawyer (God forbid) I'm hiring Annie Banks.
Guest blogger: Annie Banks
Wait, what? The speaker is saying that the customer is owed a refund. The only thing we know about refunds is that they are owed when the store messes up the processing. But wait, what here says that that happened? They tell us the photos are “unsatisfactory,” but why does that mean it's the store's fault?
Couldn't the photos be bad because of other reasons? Mainly... user error? (Low lighting? Didn't focus properly? Didn't use the right f-stop or whatever???)
The big leap, or missing piece of the argument here, is that none of that stuff matters. The argument is saying that given the facts (neither the film nor the camera were defective), and the customer's claim (she handled the film correctly), that the crappy pictures must have been the result of the store not properly processing them.
So that's what I'm looking for: bad photos, which might have infinite other causes, are automatically the store's fault as long as a couple basic conditions are met.
(A) Nope. We need something saying that it was the store's fault.
(B) Um yeah. This is pretty much exactly what we needed. Pretty sure this is our answer, but let's read the rest to be sure.
(C) No. We don't have a defective camera, so this answer is totally irrelevant.
(D) No. Again, we don't have the customer handling the film incorrectly, so this is irrelevant.
(E) No. This doesn't help us because we are arguing that the customer's claim is correct, so this is irrelevant as well.
Looking over all the answer options, B is exactly what we predicted, and the other answer options sucked.
Our answer is B.
About the author:
Hi! My name is Annie. I started studying for the October 2012 LSAT in mid-July of the same year. I started as many of us did: my first score was a 152, I only wanted to apply to top-ranked schools in California, and my dream was to get a big scholarship.
On the October LSAT, I got a 163, which was lower than I'd been averaging, and Nathan encouraged me to take the test again. Thankfully, I was fully drinking the Fox Test Prep Kool-Aid by then, and I followed his advice. I ended up with a 174 on the December 2012 LSAT, and applied to over 30 schools across the country, ranging from unranked “regional” law schools to Top-20's. I negotiated a scholarship at my dream school, UCLA, and I start in the Fall.
I moved to Los Angeles earlier this summer and I'm spending my time doing LSAT tutoring, trying to share what I learned from Fox Test Prep. Since you're reading Nathan's blog, you're already on a good path to law school. If you have any questions regarding the law school application process, or are interested in tutoring, please feel free to email me at banks.LSAT@gmail.com.
Please ask questions and/or suggest corrections to anything that seems confusing... we want to make this the best resource we can for LSAT students. We'll have all the June 2013 explanations up as quickly as possible. Thanks for reading. Tell your friends! --nathan