Kick it up to the domain is the key technique here.

@180LSATManifest Hi, I think 7 sage thinks "varies greatly from society to society and from decade to decade" implies change of environement.

For me personally, I think it still needs further assumption. However, in harder NA questions, the right AC can be the "least bad", which still needs further assumptions but other ACs just don't weaken.

I saw many NA questions arrange ACs like this one and I still fall into the trap or spend significant time in POE or answer comparison. Hoping to get better...

Much more easier to understand this question without diagram:

Support: can't do X

MC:

1 Logic-Causation:

As a result, problem Z (= cannot accurately translate ...)(anticipation: I guess by eliminating X, we can solve this problem)(sure, there might be other causes or other ways to solve Z, but the stim just gives us X)

2 Logic-Conditional:

Y is indispensable for solving Z

(Why Y is not only can solve Z, it's indispensable? Combining with 1, I guess it 's bcz only through Y, we can do X. Aka, Y is the necessary condtion for X)

Personally, I think the key here is to truly undertand the concpets of causation and conditional reasoning rather than diagram everything out.

@Iskos Thank you!! Have a nice day

I thought B refer to "a major disaster recently occurred because a well's location was based on a poor understanding of the area's subsurface geology" by using "drilling in complex geologic systems"...

Same here 🙋🏻‍♀️

Initial Stim Breakdown:

Con: The pledge is successful in stopping drinking.

Support:

Some adolescents who do not drink- take the pledge.

Most adolescents who drink - do not take the pledge.

I felt weird when reading this because I thought the evidence should have been: "some adolescents who drink -take the pledge-stop drinking."

AC:

I directly chose (E). I eliminated (C) because, for a Q24, this answer choice seemed too simple.

That is how I got trapped. (E) is not actually saying "confuses the claim that many adolescents who do not drink report having taken the pledge with the claim that many who report having taken the pledge [stop drinking]."

Takeaway:

Flaw questions can be difficult in two ways:

1. Convoluted language or "fluff" is used to bury the actual flaw.

2. When there are 2+ flaws, I get easily trapped by an AC that appears to express the glaring flaw (but actually does not), while I eliminate the AC that expresses another flaw.- For this question.

STIM Breakdown

F1 subcontract → lose some control over quality

F2 we subcontract

F3 our subcontractor → / lose some control over quality →（/subcontract）

R AC-A: I thought it was wrong bcz I saw no support from the STIM at first. LSAC thinks it’s right bcz it is a direct inference from the conditional reasoning chain.

W AC-A: I thought it was wrong bcz I skipped “you lose some control over the quality of that product.”

Takeaway1: Make inference everytime I see a conditional reasoning in MBT/MBF/MSS questions.

Takeaway2: Skipping words after checking the time at question 10.Try not to read the timer, personally it never helps.

“The tropics were quite susceptible to fire at that time because of the widespread drought”

Trans:

drought likely causes fire × (I elimianted E quickly bcz I thought E demands certainty and the stim just supports probability.)

drought causes susceptibility to fire √

E “it also contributed to”

Trans：

It means the factor guaranteed the outcome (Certainty). ×

It only needs to prove that it was 'in the mix' or played a role."√

——If Variable A makes Result B more likely (susceptible), and Result B actually happens, then Variable A contributed to Result B. This is a safe inference.

1.My false abstraction of the STIM: Two sides of the same coin

(Analogy: My classmate and I both ran 5km and finished in 5 minutes; I was holding back my effort; Main Conclusion: I can run faster).

2.The actual STIM: Offsetting variables (One variable (driving manner) performs poorly; therefore, to achieve the same result, the other variable (the car itself) must perform exceptionally well to make up the difference).

—— So I hesitate to choose C.

3. Takeaway: "Fuel-efficient" appears twice, misleading me into thinking they refer to the same object. Do not just look at the repetition of words; look at the object of attribution behind them. The LSAT often uses the same words to describe different variables (e.g., "human efficiency" vs. "machine efficiency").

For B, I think "often" just means "1+" (not "most")?

#help

@tuplr Really helpful! Thank you so much:)

If we change A to "Yeung is the only lawyer in the company's legal department", it will be a right answer?

Really helpful! Can we also get a cheat sheet about quantifiers? It will help a lot.

ok, the conclusion is not about television viewers, it's about the generation.

#help

D just eliminates one possible cause, it can't lead to "must be explained by the lower rates of destructive geophysical processes in those regions. " I think it's more like a strenghten support or necessary assumption, but not a SA which can guarantee the argument is valid.

@Stas1973 I'm not sure if my understanding is right:

The report author says: to do anything at all --> govt funding --> regain their reputation. (We do not know what the program can do to regain their reputation, but "the program chose to focus solutions to the large number of significant problems"("this method"), so the critics assume that this method is necessary condition for regaining reputation.)

AC B: Without vision, this method doesn't work. So vision is still the core, rather than this method.

@Shucongliurose Same, many thanks

SO...pigment usage is not one of painting techniuqes?

#help

My problem with E is:

E says "Humans often become ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases". But the stimulus already told us that lobsters hardly get gill diseases. Thus, I refer from E that yah human can become sicky if they eat illed lobsters, but come on, these lobsters hardly get gill disease.

JY: They(LSAC) are playing with you.. makes me laugh :)

@miriamson07627 same

@miamuoneke Same, even as a literature student, when reading "C 14 is extracted by plants..from the atmosphere", my brain was thinking "ugh plants extract C14 to atmosphere".

Takeaway: read carefully, don't skim, don't let common sense trap you.

#help

Is this a correaltion v conditional flaw? Why JY said it's not a correlation?

omg I feel stupid...

Why I think B and C strenghten the premise?