puzzle: severe drought --> below normal rainfall-->more fire, yet less financial damage than the areas with relatively normal rainfall...

AC B: compares areas subject to fire v. areas subject to few fire: the former is denser in population.

But does the former, necessarily, have below normal rainfall, and, necessarily, are the type of regions with severe drought? The same question can goes toward the latter areas as well. AC B requires us to draw this series of illicit assumptions.

"very slow v. very very very slow" lolllll

conceptual gap on logic :(

AC C is the correct answer

analysis:

The first sentence is a conditional statement:

Murderer--> at the office

H and S at the office

H committed --> H's Fingerprint or H's Footprint

S committed --> /(S's Fingerprint or S's footprint)

[S's Fingerprint OR S's footprint --> /S committed]

fingerprint- not H's

/Footprint

inference:

/Fingerprint (not H's) and /footprint at all --> /H committed

Missing:

Either (the first conditional statement has not been activated. )

There are only S and H to choose from!

Or (we connect the second gap)

We found the fingerprint at the office is S's fingerprint

------

S is the killer

what an evil question aghhhhhhhh

Stimulus:

premise:

/cannot distinguish homophones --> /accurate conversion

conclusion:

/improve recognize and utilize --> /accurate conversion

missing:

/improve recognize and utilize --> /cannot distinguish homophones

=

can distinguish homophones --> improve tech to recognize and utilize

Then, of course, it is also necessary that "can distinguish homophones --> improve tech to recognize"

AC A is the correct answer

AC D: mistaken reversal

AC E: it might be the author's assumption, but (1) we have no evidence to support it (2) it is not the real flaw of the argument

here :((

yes. it is an explicit causal chain, but I am unsure of calling this inference valid as under the same scrutiny for conditionals.

AC reading error: complex sentence lolll

AC C: Researchers are more likely to pursue lines of research [that they expect will favor theories (that) they accept] than to pursue other lines of research

note:

-This is saying the pursuit of lines of research instead of saying those researchers favoring data that align to theories they accept.

- we also do not know whether those researchers in AC C accept Jones's theory

AC D: does not address the puzzle: while researchers examine and detect errors, why do the detected errors tend to be those that disfavor Jones's theory? Telling me that there are always some errors that remain undetected does not address the puzzle!

AC B: another way of saying that researchers just show bias to favoring Jone's theory, tending to detect fewer errors in data that fits Jones's theory = they give more attention to those data that do not conform to J's theory

stimulus:

PO+ AM --m--> A

PO

-----

A --> likely AM

AC B:

Car+AA--m--> EP

Car

------

EP-->likely AA

AC A: offers a competing alternative hypothesis/explanation for the phenomenon

AC D: still does not address the issue of the ultimate source of the gold found in the artifacts: do the older artifacts still use the gold dugged from the mine?

lollllllll

So in this case, we can solve the question by using either principle or analysis in the stimulus.

#help#help#help

Can someone explain AC D?

if you write AC D as "a being with practical intelligence --> get what it wants entirely through the use of its practical intelligence"and negate it to "/ get what it wants entirely through the use of its practical intelligence --> /a being with practical intelligence", it seems to me that AC D also connects the premise and the conclusion?

I would appreciate any input! Thanks in advance!

I actually felt like this question was harder :(

To remind myself:

For the Parallel Method question, we are trying to understand the underlying logic of the author and, sometimes, have to give charitable assumptions to do so.

"(A+B) --> C--> OR -->/A

------

(A + B) is unsustainable

* there is no intermediary conclusion

* this whole conditional chain is the premise for this argument

The element "C" (considerations as remote... of an offense) itself is not a premise supporting the argument; rather, the " (A+B) --> C" (it implies that considerations as remote as what an offender did years ago are relevant to the seriousness of an offense) is part of the premise for the argument.

reduction v. suppression of acid production

irritate your stomach v. adversely affect the function of your stomach

stimulus:

lighter roasted less NMP

darker roasted more NMP

caffeine stimulates acid production that irritates the stomach

NMP suppresses the acid production

-------

conclusion: darker roasted coffee irritates the stomach less than the lighter roasted coffee

gap: two things affect the acid production; we only know the amount of NMP (factor 1 ) present in lighter roasted and darker roasted coffee but have no idea about the amount of caffeine (factor 2) present in lighter roasted and darker roasted coffee. You cannot assume that they have the same amount of caffeine (this cannot be the default assumption as it is at the core of the argument and needs to be supported by the stimulus. )

#help

Can someone explain AC D?

negating AC D: "in most cases, valid wills do adequately meet the needs of the person for whom the wills were prepared"

Would it be an unwarranted assumption that "the needs of the person for whom the wills were prepared" include a need to tailor their wills to their circumstances? Because if that is the case, I think negated AC D also wrecks the argument. If all valid wills can achieve this (again, both software and lawyers get you the valid wills), then the author cannot conclude that lawyer's expert advice is ALWAYS worth paying for.

CORRECTION.

After watching the explanation: AC A is incorrect in terms of confusing "ought + failed" with "/ought", and similarly confusing "promise + failed" with "/promise"

One "fails" to do something is not the same statement as that one "cannot" do something.

premise:

- a given promise to meet friends

- cannot keep this promise to meet friends (the initial trouble I have is mistakenly putting an → between these two elements as if they formed a conditional relationship)

*missing:

a promise --> obligation to keep a promise *

conclusion:

(ought to do --> can do) not always true = ought to do & cannot do

Correct AC D: Promise --> obligation regardless of whether the promise can or cannot be fulfilled

Incorrect AC A:

cannot (ought) --> cannot (promise)

[but the stimulus premise gives us an example of promise. Only NA activated. We want the SA though...]

Recharge after eating lunch lol...

NC Local --> excuse acceptable (defendant is unsure which set of law applies, confusion thus might help remove the penalty)

NC National

(NC NATIONAL --> NC LOCAL) [thus we confirm that confusion does not arise from the case in which you violate the national law]

(LOCAL LAW --> NATIONAL LAW)

-----

/ excuse acceptable (confusion does not apply and thus there still could be a penalty)

? ?? ???

...

!

? ??

?

:(

mY wHOle eXPeriEnCE wiTH LSAT

AC C:

Justified --> K

sometimes Justified

?

-------

/ (K --> /FP)

===========

Justified --> K

sometimes Justified

K --> FP (straightforward give the answer lol )

or

J --> FP

(again, because "sometimes" we are justified: J, K, and FP)

-----

it is possible that (K --> FP) [alternatively, it is possible for "K +FP"]