@alan-91620 just wanted to let you know that PT14 G3 Q13 cuts off the third column in the answer choices. Thanks for all your help!
Below is a link to Gladwell's podcast (part 1) where he talks about his experience taking the LSAT. There's still another part to come but the pod ends up being more about him contemplating/questioning the timing constraints placed on the LSAT in particular and law school testing in general. Figured some of you would find it interesting, enjoy.
Struggled with trying to understand the negation of E. Correct me if I'm wrong but i negated it, "People never drive when it is feasible to walk instead." Which, if correct, I didn't see how that hurt the argument. But JY is saying the argument falls apart because if everyone's already walking then how is pollution suppose to decrease, if the people who sometimes drive, are never driving. The group of people to draw from is already empty, because they're already walking when feasible, therefore you can't reduce pollution by getting them to walk because they already are. Sorry if thats convoluted just trying to write stuff out.
Had a hard time with this one. Chose AC A under timed conditions because I didn't know what else to go with. Chose B when doing BR because I saw how this AC shielded the argument from being wrecked. If they are "unsexable" (Ha) then how are they suppose to reproduce and survive? Seems kinda petty of potential mates (do Rhino's actually do this?) but it is a NA which the argument requires.
It might be attacking the premise but your intuitions are good because the savanna-forest hybrid is the potential flaw in the assumption. If there is some sort of combination of a savanna-forest then the argument falls apart and that is what AC D protects from happening. AC D says that there was never, at least in this place where the tools were found, a savanna/forest overlap, which is the NA that allows them to conclude that the tools were used by humans and not chimps.
So I was between AC B and E and chose E. I assumed B was a trap because of its use of "heart disease" same as the stimulus and they were trying to lure me in by using the same language. I know I need to understand the logic that JY explained in the video but I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts about the LSATs use of trap phrasing or language in the ACs? In @NotMyName's podcast i believe he had an off the cuff statement (I cant remember exactly what he said) about how he knew an AC wasnt correct because it used a certain phrasing or something. Anyways, just curious. #help
I saw this as the Failing Argument ≠ Validating Contradiction flaw. Here's a quote from the explanation "If someone’s augment is wrecked, that
doesn’t mean that the opposite of their conclusion is true." A fellow student, who went by Tim Horton, posted his LSAT notes a few weeks ago (there super helpful) and in his notes he specifically references this question (26 S2 Q13) as an example of this flaw. Maybe this is wrong but at least it gives you another option to think through.
How does something not have an example when the word “example” is used in the stimulus? I miss questions all the time because I don’t understand when something is an example or counterexample so I could use some help on this issue in general, not just on this specific question. #help