I get difficult querstions correct and easy answers wrong LOL what is wrong with me. I saw A and was like yeah it's strengthening the argument because it is removing an alternative. It made complete sense
So many nuances in this analysis, I absolutely LOVE it. I myself went in with the anticipation that I needed to look for an answer choice, which shows that no evidence of LHB affecting planets other than the Earth and the Moon could be found. However that's too extreme and unnecessary. The question is asking for support, not determination. Further, I had this fatal flaw, I thought lack of support for a conclusion means the reverse must be true. WRONG!! I was already excited to have this epiphany, but as I continued to read, I got goosebumps (ok I'm exaggerating but still): Answer choices A and D are intrinsically the same, in terms of establishing the absence of evidence for the competing theory, yet consequentially different, as A rules out such a competing theory to a sufficient extent. So, many, nuances!!!!!!!!
AC A, if true, could be reasonably used as a premise to support the conclusion: LHB limited to earth and moon.
AC D, if true, could be reasonably used to attack the premise used by the author to support the conclusion: /LHB limited to earth and moon.
Regardless of the fact that attacking a premise is not the same thing as weakening a conclusion, AC A is actively involved in supporting the conclusion that the question asks us to strengthen, whereas AC D is not. Tricky question!
I watched both explanations and dug through these chats (wish we could search) but cannot get an explanation that gives me the confidence on why A is correct. I understand the line of thinking being explained, but what doesn't make sense is why we are so sure there was an increase at all?
Hypo 2 suggests a continuous decreasing bombardment, but I don't see how it suggests an increase.
It says the latter part was so intense that it obliterated evidence of earlier impacts, but all that suggests is that even at the tail end and lowest part of this bombardment, it was still intense enough to destroy evidence of past hits. Does a hit have to be more intense than another to destroy its evidence? I don't understand why we are so sure that the passage dictates there was an increase which would then make A make sense.
I understood A to imply there was no increase in intensity, which is irrelevant as I didn't think there needed to be an increase or decrease in intensity for the bombardment to have hit Mars. Perhaps Mars was hit heavily consistently for all those years? Perhaps it was a slow decline in intensity, but still was hit nonetheless?
What am I missing here? I'm sure it's obvious since nobody else seemed to have the same confusion. Thanks in advance!
@bbcream I think you are focusing too much on disproving hypothesis 2. The point of the question is to strengthen the view that LHB was limited to Earth and the Moon. If LHB occurred 4 billion years ago and it was limited to the earth and the moon then we would not see evidence of LHB on any other planets. Answer choice A is simply stating that there is very little (essentially zero) evidence LHB happened on mars (which strengthens the view that it was limited to the earth and moon by eliminating an alternate explanation). The "declining" bombardment mentioned in hypothesis 2 is irrelevant because the question isn't asking us to weaken hypothesis 2, it is asking us to strengthen hypothesis 3.
the easiest way to eliminate D is that that particular rock being from the Moon instead of Mars doesn't necessarily mean that the LHB was only confined to the Earth-Moon system. It is already described as being rare to have that kind of sample and doesn't say that the only way the rock got to Earth was through the LHB. Even if the rock was re-classified to have come from the Moon, that still doesn't mean the rock came from the result of the LHB, and there is still a chance that the LHB impacted other internal solar system bodies. Essentially, the rock actually being from the Moon doesn't preclude the LHB from impacting other bodies.
D, in comparison, shows quite strong proof of similar "test subject" experiencing different results. Mars is a similar size, relatively close to Earth, has moons etc. D is obviously not a perfect answer, but it is a lot stronger answer.
108 comments
bruh lol
uh
man oh man
wdym ppl with a 180 get a 50% chance of getting this right?? my chances are 1% then
when "one stupid little rock" ruins my exam
I get these correct and easy ones wrong
This felt way more objective to me than some of the previous questions
Question made by an actual supervillain
I'm not aiming for a 180, so I just accept getting the 5/5 difficulty questions wrong lol
@quinn_andreychuk in my mind, i study for a 180, aim for a 175, and hopefully end with a 170. so lowkey keep going for it man
@CScheresky that's the right mentality to have! Ill keep pushing thru the 5/5s
was so hype when i predicted d as an answer choice and so devestated when it was explained as incorrect
I get difficult querstions correct and easy answers wrong LOL what is wrong with me. I saw A and was like yeah it's strengthening the argument because it is removing an alternative. It made complete sense
hated that ❤️
So many nuances in this analysis, I absolutely LOVE it. I myself went in with the anticipation that I needed to look for an answer choice, which shows that no evidence of LHB affecting planets other than the Earth and the Moon could be found. However that's too extreme and unnecessary. The question is asking for support, not determination. Further, I had this fatal flaw, I thought lack of support for a conclusion means the reverse must be true. WRONG!! I was already excited to have this epiphany, but as I continued to read, I got goosebumps (ok I'm exaggerating but still): Answer choices A and D are intrinsically the same, in terms of establishing the absence of evidence for the competing theory, yet consequentially different, as A rules out such a competing theory to a sufficient extent. So, many, nuances!!!!!!!!
I don't get this one at all...
I'm confused why this has such a high difficulty rating. If this was a question in the LR section, it would've been pretty straightforward I think.
I feel better knowing that 59% of people also picked D <3
bruh got baited into D
this was an interesting one
ow.
wait what the hell
love the science ones, makes me engineer brain happy
@AthleticWonderfulWhile I am a scientist too but LSAT is tricky regardless
why so many downvotes lmao
War crime tier question
Here is how I am thinking about this.
AC A, if true, could be reasonably used as a premise to support the conclusion: LHB limited to earth and moon.
AC D, if true, could be reasonably used to attack the premise used by the author to support the conclusion: /LHB limited to earth and moon.
Regardless of the fact that attacking a premise is not the same thing as weakening a conclusion, AC A is actively involved in supporting the conclusion that the question asks us to strengthen, whereas AC D is not. Tricky question!
this one was evilll
@KevinLin'sOldUserName pls help...
I watched both explanations and dug through these chats (wish we could search) but cannot get an explanation that gives me the confidence on why A is correct. I understand the line of thinking being explained, but what doesn't make sense is why we are so sure there was an increase at all?
Hypo 2 suggests a continuous decreasing bombardment, but I don't see how it suggests an increase.
It says the latter part was so intense that it obliterated evidence of earlier impacts, but all that suggests is that even at the tail end and lowest part of this bombardment, it was still intense enough to destroy evidence of past hits. Does a hit have to be more intense than another to destroy its evidence? I don't understand why we are so sure that the passage dictates there was an increase which would then make A make sense.
I understood A to imply there was no increase in intensity, which is irrelevant as I didn't think there needed to be an increase or decrease in intensity for the bombardment to have hit Mars. Perhaps Mars was hit heavily consistently for all those years? Perhaps it was a slow decline in intensity, but still was hit nonetheless?
What am I missing here? I'm sure it's obvious since nobody else seemed to have the same confusion. Thanks in advance!
@bbcream I think you are focusing too much on disproving hypothesis 2. The point of the question is to strengthen the view that LHB was limited to Earth and the Moon. If LHB occurred 4 billion years ago and it was limited to the earth and the moon then we would not see evidence of LHB on any other planets. Answer choice A is simply stating that there is very little (essentially zero) evidence LHB happened on mars (which strengthens the view that it was limited to the earth and moon by eliminating an alternate explanation). The "declining" bombardment mentioned in hypothesis 2 is irrelevant because the question isn't asking us to weaken hypothesis 2, it is asking us to strengthen hypothesis 3.
the easiest way to eliminate D is that that particular rock being from the Moon instead of Mars doesn't necessarily mean that the LHB was only confined to the Earth-Moon system. It is already described as being rare to have that kind of sample and doesn't say that the only way the rock got to Earth was through the LHB. Even if the rock was re-classified to have come from the Moon, that still doesn't mean the rock came from the result of the LHB, and there is still a chance that the LHB impacted other internal solar system bodies. Essentially, the rock actually being from the Moon doesn't preclude the LHB from impacting other bodies.
D, in comparison, shows quite strong proof of similar "test subject" experiencing different results. Mars is a similar size, relatively close to Earth, has moons etc. D is obviously not a perfect answer, but it is a lot stronger answer.