If you have access to the core curriculum, there's an entire section that covers this. For LG, there's essentially a list of words that indicate whether something is sufficient vs necessary. If study the list of words, you should be good for LG. As for LR, it's sometimes a bit more fluid as the English language can be a bit tricky and you'll have to rely on your familiarity with conditional language to parse out tougher sentences.

This flaw is actually pretty similar to another question on a past PT that talked about bank deposits and deposits clearing. Knowing about this flaw is crucial for quickly seeing the issue and finding the right answer. We can't assume that people in the stimulus know about the conditional relationship, unless otherwise stated.

Actually, I think the LSAT writers account for that when they say the fuel price of "bringing crops to market". Insofar as there is a distinction being made, it would be wrong to assume that all fuel cost is the same. Like the increase in fuel price could refer to the cost of diesel that heavy transport vehicles use or the cost of jet fuel that planes use to deliver crops across the country. I think both of these are equally as reasonable as assuming that the fuel price refers primarily to gasoline price, in which case AC A doesn't really interact with the argument that way we need it to.

I would avoid doing that because it assumes that actions can't be morally neutral. Unless the question stem clearly sets up a dichotomy, you can't assume that just because it's not moral must mean that it is morally wrong. There was actually a LR question on past PT that used this distinction as the correct AC so I would say it's safe to assume that questions of morality on the LSAT aren't just moral vs immoral.

I think the issue is that fact that "original" was used to describe the barter system. If you call something "original", it means that it was the first thing to occur. That's the problem here. The conclusion is trying to say that the barter system was the original by using the premise given, but in doing so, it calls the barter system "original". That means that the author is assuming the conclusion to be true and as such, is referring to the "original" system to prove that it was the "original" system.

AC D is also problematic because it doesn't address the trace elements. Even if the artifacts were made from earlier artifacts, it doesn't address how the trace elements got there. If anything, all AC D says is that the artifacts in question were made from earlier artifacts that came from the gold mines, which just supports the conclusion as the conclusion just says that the gold used was from the same mine.

I felt the same way under timed conditions. I wrongly assumed that if the people around the store weren't being vandalized, then there was a decrease in vandalism just as a whole, which would mean that vandalism would decrease regardless of the lights. However, after POE, it seemed that AC C forced me to make the most assumptions.

I think JY recognizes that AC A gives us part of the SA needed, but the issue he's going over is that AC doesn't directly meet both parts of the missing SA. The missing SA is (Important & WW → published) but AC only gives us (Important → published). At first glance, this can't be the correct answer because it's missing WW, which is the issue he's going over. The problem here isn't trying to determine what's needed but rather trying to determine whether or not what is given in AC A would satisfy what we need.

.

I don't think so. I think there is a difference between a "story told in an entertaining way" and a "story that is told primarily for entertainment". You could therefore negate AC E and it would have little to no bearing on the argument because folk tales aren't told for entertainment, they're just told in an entertaining way. For example, the person who made the initial argument could just say, "cool, stories told for entertainment can't have deeper meaning, but that doesn't accurately describe folk tales, so it doesn't matter".

I think AC A works even if you don't realize that not getting an internship is not a disastrous consequence because the stim asks for overwhelming evidence and AC A says that it MIGHT cause him to not get an internship. Based on this, it's safe to say that the teacher does not have overwhelming evidence. If AC A said that the teacher knows it would affect his chances, then I think you have to analyze the situation to determine whether or not it's disastrous.

However, I think it becomes a slippery slope to make assumptions about what is or isn't disastrous without context. For example, if the student was the sole provider for his family and without the internship, he can't make money to feed his family, we can't assume that it's not disastrous. Again though, this requires context, which makes me a bit hesitant to select AC A based on what it means to be disastrous. I think it's a safer bet to assume that the conditional statement is based on overwhelming evidence of something bad happening and insofar as she thinks it MIGHT happen, she doesn't have overwhelming evidence, which triggers the conditional.

This was meant to be a general comment, not a response, sorry!

I eliminated D because we can't assume that just because people are living longer that there is an increase in population size. What if we have to live longer because we can't have babies.

The author explains that kin recognition is important because they avoid eating eating siblings in order to keep from contracting a worse disease whereas AC C says that kin recognition is needed to avoid interbreeding. This means that to explain the importance of kin recognition, you no longer need to rely on just what the author says, you now have the option to say it’s to avoid interbreeding, which effectively weakens author’s argument.

I understand why AC C is correct but I'm still a bit confused by AC D. Granted that we know nothing of most of the questions posed to scientists, doesn't the end of the stimulus that claims that scientists don't typically answer questions that aren't "subject to such formulation" (referring to questions asked by politicians and leaders) imply that most questions asked are subject to such formulation, meaning that most questions are questions that have been asked by politicians and leaders since those are the questions that have been subject to formulation? #help

I think in its simplest form, it would be something like "no evidence exists to prove X happened, therefore it did not happen".

The issue comes down to competing moral interests. Whereas AC B answers the question of competing interests by saying that some X obligation overrides the obligation one has to their family, AC D simply says that obligation X doesn't exist. The stimulus doesn't question the existence of another moral obligation, rather it questions whether putting one obligation above another is okay.

I'm not sure if it helps, but AC B precludes the premise from ever being accepted. The premise says "few would deny" to imply that people generally accept or tolerate individuals defending their family members by messing with police work. AC B says that this cannot be the case by claiming that the argument doesn't consider that other moral obligations (e.g. obligation to follow the law) would mean that people never think this is okay. In the world suggested by AC B, people believe that following the law is more morally important that defending one's family, which would wreck the argument. Also, if I understand correctly, by precluding the world proposed by the stimulus, you don't have to worry about exclusivity because that exclusive event literally would not happen because people generally believe that following the law is more important than defending one's family.

I don't think you're supposed to map out the lawgic into a "tree" because P-->/H is the conclusion, not a premise. The premises given allow us to draw the following chain:

C --> /T --> /P

Then we are told:

P -->/H or H --> /P

So, the only way to make the conclusion valid is to add H --> C to the premise.

Once we add it back, we have:

H --> C --> /T --> /P

To confirm that this is the correct answer, just take the contrapositive:

P --> T --> /C --> /H

in other words

P --> /H or H --> /P