Wrong Answer (D) and Right Answer (E). I can't seem to reach the understanding on how E is relevant, e.g. doesn't contain information introduced in the passage on whether or not zebra mussels can transform hazardous waste and why they would be considered hazardous waste. I chose (D) because out of all the answers it seemed like the closest to being supported, as it mentions one of the 'redeeming qualities' of zebra mussels.

An assumption I came up with was: "allowing eggs to decay makes it impossible to use them to analyze for pesticide-bird tests"

Would something along those lines be a viable answer for assumption questions?

I chose answer choice C because being the rock being submerged in water does not prove the conclusion that is falsifying the idea that life began in the ocean and did not exist on land until half a billion years ago.

Does anyone have an explanation for why C does support the conclusion and why D would be the answer for non-supporting? Thanks!

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

Can someone explain why E is wrong?

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

Could someone please explain why the answer is A not B? Thanks!

Stimulus says: Manners are necessarily social (i.e. manners require a social element). Morals are not necessarily social (i.e. morals do not require a social element). Rules of etiquette do not apply to situations with morals or manners alone.

Things I noted upon reading:

Most strongly supported?

A: You can be immoral without causing harm. (i.e. you can not be moral in a case that is not social). Yep, this fits with #3 above.

B: An immoral act is never a violation of etiquette. This could be false if the situation also involved manners, so we can´t say it is supported.

C: Morality applies only when one is alone. I think you´d only choose this if you were hella confused.

D.: It is more important... I stopped reading right there and knew this was wrong. There is no comparison being made in the stimulus.

E: A social situation will never have anything to do with morality. Clearly wrong based on #2 and #3 described above.

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

I answered (C): I thought this would be right because it was the statement that was most backed up by what is in the stimulus.

The right answer is (E):I was battling between C and E, but I didn't pick E because it seemed like a statement although true, the stimulus was not supporting it directly.

Can someone explain why E is correct and why C is wrong? I feel like I am overthinking this.

Admin note: Edited title and post; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]." Also, please review the Forum rules "Do not post LSAT questions", the title format helps others reference the PT and question. Thanks!

Hello,

I'm confused on how to approach this weakening question. My understanding of the auto industry executive's argument:

The auto industry executive is rejecting the recent guidelines that are requiring the production of cars with higher fuel efficiency (C) because statistics show that cars after 1977 that were built smaller to be more fuel efficient had a higher incidence of accident related fatalities (P). As I understand it, the executive is making a poor correlation-causation argument between building cars smaller and the assumed increase of fatal accidents. I'm having trouble with how the AC's best weaken the argument.

I initially chose D, and was struggling to find a better AC during BR. I eliminated E and B right off that bat. That left A C D. I chose D because I thought if modern technology could make cars more fuel efficient WITHOUT having to alter the size of the car (the executive is linking smaller fuel efficient cars and fatalities), then it might weaken the argument. You eliminate the need for change in size, you eliminate one potential connection with accidents.

I'm struggling to see how AC C is correct. I noticed the change between big and small and left that AC at first. Can someone help explain how that is the correct AC. From my understanding, if large cars can have a better fuel efficiency from new technology based off recent guidelines, does that weaken the executive's argument that the guidelines would have to adopt previous standards that they (incorrectly?) linked with accidents and fatalities?

Question Stem: Sufficient Assumption

Stimulus: Shoe factory employs more unskilled full time workers (W) than all other businesses in town combined.

If shoe factory closes, more than half of town RESIDENTS who are W will lose jobs.

See the shift between the W that are employed at the factory in the premise, and RESIDENTS in the conclusion? Look for an idea connecting these 2 ideas: workers at the factory and residency.

A. residency, no workers

B. workers, no residency

C. workers, no residency

D. everyone employed at the factory is a resident.

E. neither

D works because without it, we have no idea where the workers come from - what if they all live OUTSIDE Centerville? Then there is no way the conclusion is true. So D closes this one gap.

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."

I genuinely did not understand the stimulus.

The "but" in the first section reveals the author's position on Midville: it is not as expensive as others perceive it to be. The following sentences provide support as to why they believe this is true.

Would the contrapositive of "If all farmers were to practice organic farming, they would be unable to produce enough food for Earth's growing population" be different from the contrapositive of "If farmers were to practice organic farming, they would be unable to produce enough food for Earth's growing population?"

The only difference is the "all" right before "farmers."

Thanks!

I got 4 out of 5 right in this drill but got this particular questions drastically wrong. I selected B and on blind review selected C. I never felt E was correct during the drill or blind review. I do not know what I am not seeing on this particular question. I do not understand why C is incorrect. If 40% in the first group reported awaking paralyzed with a strange presence in the room, wouldn't it be correct to say 60% had not? Or is C wrong, because it only mentioned "strange presence" and excluded "paralyzed" as part of the answer? #help

I had mapped it as:

/RDW - /Alleviate

- IEI -> RTV

w/ the contra, i sort of see why B is correct:

[ Nat. Responsibility -> /RTV -> /IEI -> RDW ]

Does that make sense?

But why wouldn't E be correct? Is it that the idea of alleviating conditions of injustice are not the same thing as creating conditions of economic justice?

This was not a fun flaw question.

At its absolute most basic, the stimulus says:

Conclusion: Not X.

Premise: If we BELIEVED X -> Y.

The assumption here is subtle: Since not Y, not X.

But why on Earth would we make that jump based on the single premise we are given? Also, notice we are drawing a conclusion based on what would be true if we BELIEVED otherwise, not if the case it WERE otherwise.

Answers:

A. A true belief (X) can have bad consequences (maybe, not Y). In other words, the author is failing to consider the possibility that X -> not Y. If this is true, the argument doesn´t work.

B. The author establishes one claim to not be true, but where is the other???

C. Irrelevant, there are no motives mentioned.

D. No implication that the most negative outcome must occur.

E. There is no group of individuals being compared to another.

I can understand why (B) is correct - but not sure why (C) is wrong. I think I'm not understanding (C) correctly. What does it mean to "indicate the falsehood of the implications" of a hypothesis? Doesn't the author do so in the stimulus, by showing that predicting an invention according to the hypothesis necessarily entails inventing it (the implications), which would be self-contradictory? Is (C) wrong because self-contradiction ≠ falsehood? I'd really appreciate it if someone could give me an example of (C) since I'm not exactly sure I understand JY's example either.

Thanks in advance!

For the correct answer choice, why does it matter if the trees used are or old or new since the answer is talking about the harm caused by the products they will be turned into? This is the reason I did not choose it #help

How does the correct answer choice interact with the comparison to pharmaceutical drugs? If anything I would think this answer supports the position of the critic #help

Can someone explain the percents/proportion relationship that makes B the right answer? I am having a hard time understanding it. #help

(1) Most profitable investment: The rate of inflation EXCEEDS the rate of return by a given percentage (say, x%). That is, in real terms, the investment generates a loss; the inflation rate overcompensates whatever profit is being made here. According to the stimulus, this means that the VALUE of this investment declines by the same percentage (x%) at least. Value thus is presented as a function of profit.

(2) Any other investment – that is, any investment that is LESS profitable than the one described in case #1: The value of this investment declines by MORE than x% – that is, the differential between the inflation rate and the rate of return must be even greater than in case #1. Inflation overcompensates the rate of returns even more than in the first case.

Answer choice (C) suggests: The second investment (any investment that is not the most profitable one) is LESS profitable than the most profitable one. If VALUE is a function of PROFIT, and if VALUE in the second case declines more than in the first case, then the second case cannot describe the maximally profitable investment described in case #1.

I’m not sure I’m getting either the economics or the logic behind this right, but it seems to me that a lot of the information presented in the passage is redundant. To conclude what answer choice (C) says ("Case #2 does not describe the most profitable investment"), we only would have needed to know (1) that case #1 is the most profitable investment, and (2) that case #2 can be distinguished from that investment. Is this right / is there a more efficient way to solve this, especially under timed conditions?

I am saying this because there are some terms that I dont know what the question means. Like am I supposed to know what a generalization, alternative explanation, or evidence is? Could someone please explain this. There was this one question in the AP lesson that talked about Crime and Media coverage. I chose A for the answer because the explanation was supporting the conclusion. However the actual answer was E which was an "Alternative Explanation" What does that mean?

I don't understand why the answer choice is not A?

On the 2007 prep test, I was unable to arrive at the correct conclusion for RC#13. I was confident that my answer was right and I even got it wrong during blind review. Even now, I’m unsure that I’d be able to deduce this quickly on a test. When I get to the RC section and begin doing drills, how can I study for this type of question? Are all Art, InfAP and Co questions similar?

I chose B, and then A, as I was unsure how this claim directly supported the main conclusion...

I guess the reason why its true is because its strengthening the reason to use sugar on the wound, best explained because of its dehydrating effect. I originally choose E but then switched it to A and got it right in a blind review.

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"