Student Question

I understand that A is wrong because if they are all from the same flock, it’s not representative.

Then why is C wrong? Won’t there be “adult → whole population” error?

I have given it some thought, and I came up with this:

Since it is the “most” question and C can’t deny the validity of the experiment to represent the “adult” group at least, it’s less weakening than B, which can’t be valid for any group of birds since it didn’t control the alternative hypothesis.

Is this the right reasoning? If there’s something better, please let me know.

Also, JY’s reasoning for C was that maybe all he wanted to do was test on adults.

I feel like his reasoning here a posteriori, because it seems like there could be a question where this could be too big assumption compared to other ACs.

Tutor Answer

You bring up a good point regarding C and an "adult--> whole population" error. If the last paragraph had said this experiment provided "definitive proof," then I think you would have been correct in identifying this as something that weakens the claim made in the paragraph.

But the last paragraph only mentioned that the experiment provided "further evidence" for the hypothesis in question. That claim is limited, and fits well within the confines of an experiment that only tested adult birds. Evidence that adult birds responded to the "breast stripe" width of dummy birds does support the overall hypothesis, at least as it relates to adult birds. That is significant all on its own, and in turn supports the claim that "further evidence" has been provided.

From my perspective, it is this point that JY is making in the video: knowing that "live juvenile birds" were not included in the experiment is irrelevant, because it doesn't weaken the claim that "further evidence" has been provided. In that sense, this may indeed be an example of posteriori knowledge in that JY, from experience, can discern irrelevant information. But I don't think it is due to him having seen this question and/or other similar kinds of questions. Instead, I think it is instead the product of a certain kind of mindset, and an LSAT strategy more broadly: recognizing that there only ever exists one correct answer choice (AC) - all others are fundamentally wrong, not less wrong.

This mindset, I believe, helps one be more discerning. In effect, it leads to you "assuming the worst" in an AC: instead of asking yourself why it might be correct, you instead ask why it might be incorrect. I believed this is a helpful bias to have on the LSAT, because it raises the bar for what truly makes an AC relevant. And if it is not relevant, then it must be wrong.

Student Question

If answer choice B said, “In many surveys, most people DO name high salary as the most desirable feature of a job” would this be a weakener? I think I understand why B is wrong but I want to be clear on exactly why it’s wrong. It’s pretending to attack the premise because it’s trying to say the opposite of what the survey data is saying in the premise. The presence of a new, separate set of survey data that reports the opposite of what another set of survey data reports doesn’t refute or “weaken” the later. We don’t know enough about either set of survey data to determine whether one is superior to another. The two simply came to different conclusions. This explanation, as outlined in the video, makes sense to me. However, by that reasoning, wouldn’t this make answer choice (A) in PT 114.2.12 a correct answer (since it’s an except question)?

Tutor Answer

Your rephrased AC (B) would absolutely weaken this argument. The author's position is that money isn’t the strongest incentive when choosing a job -- the new answer you've provided would completely blow up that logic. Your logic about why the current version of AC (B) doesn't work is also really well executed. Keep thinking about problems this way, and you will go far on this exam.

Now, to 114.2.12. This is a very tough Weaken / Except question. I'm sorry the video didn't do what you needed it to do -- let's go through the question together! Because this is an "Except" question, we know that four of these answer choices are going to weaken the argument in the stimulus. One of them won't, and that will be the correct answer. Importantly, just because something doesn't weaken an argument does not mean we can conclude that it strengthens the argument. For example, if I throw eggs at a brick wall, I'm probably not weakening the brick wall -- but I'm certainly not strengthening it. Our correct answer could do nothing, or be totally irrelevant. All we care about is that it doesn't weaken the argument.

First, let's go through the incorrect ACs (the four that do weaken the argument):

AC (A) weakens the argument by introducing outside evidence that counters the conclusion (that "most people would want to be informed if they had any serious medical condition").

AC (B) weakens the argument by directly attacking the survey conducted. If people don't share their true feelings, we have no way to conclude that the survey used as the argument's only point of evidence actually proves... well, anything.

AC (D) weakens the argument because it indicates that the survey was bad. If the survey suggested to those taking it that a reasonable person would want to be told if they had a serious medical condition, we can infer that people would be more likely to answer that way -- suggesting that the data used to support the conclusion is faulty at best.

AC (E) weakens the argument by significantly biasing the result of the sample. Not only is this new group more likely to be aware of what's happening when the survey is being administered, but you certainly can't support a conclusion about "most people" on the grounds of a survey conducted exclusively of first year psych students.

Now, for the correct answer.

AC (C) does not weaken the argument. A survey conductor having no background in the field they are conducting a survey on does not mean they would be unable to conduct a good survey. There is a clear and distinct separation between the concept that they are surveying on and the process of conducting the survey itself. Plus, this answer choice says that "some” of the researchers had no background in medicine, which only tells us that this applies to at least one researcher. Other researchers might have.

Student Question

I still don't understand completely why E is the right answer and what the difference is between D being wrong.

Tutor Answer

Since this is a Must Be False (MBF) question, let's first break down the stimulus into a series of conditional statements. This will help us know with certainty what cannot be true.

1. People <-some-> think that in every barrel of politicians there are only a few rotten ones

2. If deceit is a quality of rottenness --> author believes all effective politicians are rotten

3. To do job properly (i.e. effectively) --> politicians must be deceitful

4. Scrupulously honest about obeying the rules --> /effective politician

Having laid out these statements, we can now say what must be true under the following conditions: 1 - a sufficient condition is triggered; 2 - a necessary conditions is negated (i.e. the contrapositive).

It is for this reason that, when answering these kinds of questions, it is helpful to apply those aforementioned condition directly to the answer choices. By this I mean: we can now examine if an answer choice triggers a sufficient condition, negates a necessary condition, or simply has no bearing on any of the above conditional statements.

Before moving on, it's important to note that a MBF question does not mean all the incorrect answer choices must be true. Instead, simply being possibly true makes them incorrect as well. This makes the MBF an extremely high standard to surpass: we must know with 100% certainty that they cannot possibly be true.

Let's now take a look at answer choices D and E. Starting with D, we see that it say's "some deceitful politicians are ineffective." Does this trigger any of the conditions from our above statements? To make this clear, let's rewrite those statements below:

1. People <-some-> think that in every barrel of politicians there are only a few rotten ones

2. If deceit is a quality of rottenness --> author believes all effective politicians are rotten

3. To do job properly (i.e. effectively) --> politicians must be deceitful

4. Scrupulously honest about obeying the rules --> /effective politician

There are two possible conditions we can draw from D: "deceitful politicians" and "ineffective." Looking at the above statements, we see that both conditions exist as only as necessary conditions. In turn, nothing is triggered by either: we don't know if a deceitful politicians necessarily is an ineffective one, and vice versa. D, therefore, could be true; we simply don't know. Since it could be true, it follows that it does not have to be false.

Unlike D, however, E does trigger a follow on condition (in this as, a sufficient condition is triggered): "some scrupulously honest politicians are effective." The bolded and italicized part of that statement directly triggers statement #4 from above:

4. Scrupulously honest about obeying the rules --> /effective politician

As this statement tells us, anyone who is scrupulously honest cannot be an effective politician. This directly contradicts E, which says' that some of these kinds of politicians are actually effective. In turn, E cannot be true.

Student Question

What I meant is that if "historical records" refer to work "done by scholars" (as the first sentence said they write things after studying past instances), AC A seems to be able to work as evidence of the conclusion since their work includes less about unsuccessful businesses.

At any rate, I was able to discard my temptation to choose A because

1) The right answer also uses the same term, and if that in the right context meant scholar's work instead of 'data', it doesn't make sense at all.

2) Even if A meant that, work on a business history doesn't necessarily need to include 'factor' information. So the reason such info can't be inferred doesn't need to be their tendency; it could be just that they didn't want/care about such information in the first place.

Tutor Answer

I see how interpreting "records" to mean "work done by scholars" would make this much more confusing. Because if so, it would seem to be saying that what scholars have written hasn't provided any insight about why businesses fail.

And yes, even if A meant that, knowing the "factors" that led to a failed business is not required to know that the business failed. It's great you can see that.

Student Question

So the “historical records” in AC A = the data they study?

Even tho I got this one right, AC A seemed quite tempting because I first thought that it means “what scholar has written”.

Tutor Answer

To directly answer your question: yes, it is reasonable to infer that "historical records" = "data" studied by scholars. In the context of this answer choice, "historical records" is a catch all term representing the information available to scholars.

But more broadly speaking, I 100% agree that A is a very tempting answer choice: it seems to give us a reason why historians probably focus more on studying successful than unsuccessful firms. The issue with A, however, is that "specific factors" does not equal overall business performance. Said another way, one need not know the "specific factors" that led to a business failing to know that the business failed. The implication: even granting the truth of A, scholars would still able to recognize whether or not a past business was successful or unsuccessful. In turn, we still don't know why scholars would purposefully over sample, and thus overestimate, the number of past successful businesses.

I noticed that you also said AC A was tempting because you thought it meant "what scholars have written." If possible, could you clarify what you meant by this statement? For example, are you referring to a specific part of the stimulus? I only ask to ensure I am answering your question in the best way possible!

Student Question:

I'm understanding the flaw here. The argument just makes no sense. You can't draw that conclusion based on the fact that not all tenured faculty are full professors and that all linguistics departments have tenure, that NOT ALL of the ling. dept. are full professors. Maybe it's the case that ALL of them are full professors! The argument just states that not all tentured facility are full professors, maybe there are other subgroups of tentured professors... whatever that's not the point.

I think I might be having trouble following his 'Lawgic' and that it's messing with my ability to spot the conditionals and the flaw QUICKLY. I can't really spot the FLAW quickly is my problem, so I am resorting to only sentence structure to get this done (in time)!

Is there a better way you might be able to explain this question?

T - / F

L - > T

L - > T -> / F

conc,

L -> / F

doesn't this mean / F is a necessary conclusion for L as well? so the logic would follow here right? or you can't have this? Just ab it confused.

Tutor Answer:

Let's break this question down together, and I'll show you how I would go about doing it.

First: I take the argument, and I break it down -- focusing a significant portion of my effort into identifying the conclusion. I'll provide a copy for reference.

Stimulus: Not all tenured faculty are full professors. Therefore, although every faculty member in the linguistics department has tenure, it must be the case that not all of the faculty members in the linguistics department are full professors.

I'd break this down as:

Not all tenured faculty (T) are full professors (F)

Every faculty member in the linguistics department (L) is (T)

THEREFORE: not all L are F.

This is confusing, I agree, but I think it becomes easier at the next step. I take the conclusion (Not all L are F) and I ask myself: what's the evidence that we have to conclude this? We know that not all T are F, and we know that all L are T. But here's the thing -- even though this lawgic sort of maps out, it doesn't work, because these subgroups don't overlap. Here, you'll find our lesson on negating "all" quantifiers (something that happens in the first sentence here). You'll notice that -- as a result of the negation -- we can conclude that some T are F.

Once I sort of understand why the lawgic might be flawed, I run a hypothetical to test it. The objective is to create a situation that fits all of the premises, but reaches a different conclusion. Here, for example: let's pretend that 99% of all of the tenured faculty at the school are full professors. That still means that "not all T are F" is true. Let's pretend that 100% of the tenured faculty in the linguistics department are full professors, and that all of the professors in the linguistics department are tenured. Both of these statements could be true, according to the premises -- there's nothing ruling them out.

Here's the thing: this perfectly acceptable hypothetical comes to a wildly different conclusion than the argument. Now, all of a sudden, we're looking at a linguistics department that is comprised of only full professors -- something counter to our original conclusion.

Armed with this information, I now know that what I need to do is look for an AC that has a similar confusion between overlapping subgroups. That's why AC (C) is the correct answer. It says that:

Some (read: NOT ALL) BDFA are WP

All GB are DFA

THEREFORE: Some (read, again: NOT ALL) GB are WP

Student Question:

In terms of speed, comparing logic obviously doesn’t make sense here. I understand the conditionals here and solved this problem on my own. The question is. What’s the real strategy? One of your tutors mentioned comparing language and sentence structure rather than the actual flaw in the conditional reasoning. If you do that here, it works. I guess I’m asking this: is this a viable strategy for CondR/Flaw/Parallel (high-level like this one) questions?

Tutor Answer:

This is an excellent question. When talking about strategy for Parallel and Parallel Flaw, I think it's always good to lead with the fact that these questions do take a lot of time, and (at least in my opinion) that's sort of by design. Really high level test takers generally tend to blaze through the Main Conclusion / Argument Part / Method questions that dominate the first fifteen of a given LR section simply because they're routine. The back half of the test is designed to take more time to do right, and these questions show up much more frequently there.

So, how do we get them to take less time? I really like the advice you mentioned another tutor giving -- I think it's an excellent starting place. Compare the language and sentence structure, with the understanding that the language itself isn't dispositive. I think that will help you diagnose the arguments quickly, without necessarily focusing too much on small details.

I had a pretty thorough method when I would do these questions. With Parallel Flaw questions, I would always start by checking if there was conditional reasoning in the argument when I was reading it. Generally, if there's conditional reasoning, then the flaw is going to be something that you've seen before -- a sufficiency vs. necessity flaw, or something to that end. Once you have the flaw, it's a lot easier to find an argument with the same flaw in the answer choices. For me, Parallel Flaw was almost easier than Parallel Reasoning, because I knew that the argument I was dealing with had a problem. The focus could be on finding the problem, as opposed to trying to really nail down a complete method.

In short: I like the advice you've been given, and I think if properly applied, it can be an excellent strategy on high level Parallel Flaw questions. Start with the flaw, and go from there.

Student Question:

Please re-explain question 22

Tutor Answer:

This is a tough question. Let's go through it together, working only with what the author says in the passage. What you want to avoid with any "implied" RC question is stretching -- you should be able to select a specific portion of the passage that provides direct support for your inference.

I'm going to start by talking about why each of the wrong answers are wrong.

AC (B) is wrong because the author doesn't explicitly say today’s creators are less talented. I am willing to grant that the author praises past creators’ devotion to storytelling, but that alone isn't enough to support the inference made in AC (B).

AC (C) is wrong because the passage says today's industry is more interdependent with mass media, not less. (“Today this arrangement has mushroomed into an intricately interdependent mass-media entertainment industry.")

AC (D) is wrong, but is certainly more difficult to eliminate. In my mind, the passage focuses instead on how publicity functions (i.e., it drives profit and shapes film content), not on its entertainment value.) Therefore, I don't think there's a comparison, which would be needed to select AC (D).

AC (E) is wrong, and is very difficult to eliminate (again, in my opinion). That's because I do think that the passage presents the star system as an early marketing strategy (..the public was interested in actors' private lives, and that information about actors could be used to promote their films”). The thing is, I think the author is trying to point to the focus on hype and engagement as the reason for the decline in quality.

That leaves us with the correct answer:

AC (A) is correct because it is directly supported by the information available in the passage. The author contrasts past and present Hollywood, emphasizing that in the 1920s, publicity sparked curiosity but was backed by films created by “talented writers, directors, and producers devoted to the art of storytelling.” Today, the industry often prioritizes promotion over storytelling, and films are increasingly designed to generate curiosity rather than to emotionally engage audiences.

Student Question

Why is E better than D? Is there anything in the stimulus or the questions that indicates that dinosaurs being vulnerable to fatal respiratory problems would better explain why the dinosaurs died than that many were killed in the actual strike and then more in the subsequent tidal waves?

Tutor Answer

Regarding choice (D), it doesn't explain how even the killing of many dinosaurs could have caused them to all go extinct. Remember that "many" doesn't imply "most," and it should be treated as meaning "some." However, even if all dinosaurs in the area were killed, that doesn't explain why dinosaurs in other areas went extinct too-- how did dinosaurs on another continent, for example, die off?

​

For (E), we know from the stimulus that an asteroid would have hurled debris into the atmosphere for several months, which is a much farther-reaching event than an impact and tidal waves. So if dinosaurs could get a fatal infection, this would have killed off dinosaurs from a much larger area, possibly globally, which explains how all the dinosaurs went extinct.

Student Question

I thought B would be right because of the ‘last refuge’ part in the stimulus. Could you help clarify why B is incorrect. I also thought A was supported, but b more strongly supported because of its specificity.

Tutor Answer

In clarifying why B is incorrect, I think it will be helpful to first start with a discussion of specificity and how it relates to Most Strongly Supported (MSS) questions.

Specificity can be an important component of MSS questions. If an answer choice specifically matches something that was said in the stimulus, then we know it is indeed the correct answer. In that sense, specificity can be useful in answering these types of questions.

But it is important to note that "specificity" is only useful in so far as it helps illuminate information that could be true. An answer choice (AC), for example, is not more likely to be true only because it makes a very specific statement. It is only more likely to be true if states information that we actually know to be true, or very likely to be true given what we read in the stimulus.

Which is why specific ACs can actually be dangerous options: if they are not exactly stated and/or matched in the stimulus, then they cannot be correct.

AC B is a prime example of this idea. AC B tells us the following: Unless resource managers regularly intervene in most of the world's remaining forests, many of the world's most endangered species will not survive. This is a very specific statement, but does it match the stimulus?

The answer to this question is no, it does not. Looking at the second sentence of the stimulus tells us why: These fragmented forest ecosystems have typically lost their ability to sustain themselves in the long term, yet they include the last refuges for some of the world most endangered species. "Last refuges" is the key phrase in that sentence. It tells us that "last refuges" are in danger if no outside intervention is made. But importantly, it does not tell us that losing last refuges equates to extinction.

Think of it this way: Do we know zoo's won't take in these animals? Do we know new preserves won't be created? We don't know the answers to these questions, which means we can't say for certain if losing the "last refuges" for these animals will lead to their extinction.

AC B, therefore, was too specific. It described a specific consequence (extinction) that is not actually supported in the stimulus. Had it instead said something to the effect of "these endangered species would lose their last refuges," then it would indeed have been correct. But instead said something else, something that constrained the consequences of non-intervention in a way that was unsupported by the stimulus.

It is for this reason that I would avoid looking only for specificity in potential ACs. Instead, approach ACs with the mindset of "Is this actually supported?" Seen in this light, ACs which are highly qualified and which offer only a limited number of possibilities are the ones most likely to be true. AC A is a great example of this concept: it creates a scenario in which a certain sufficient condition has been triggered (i.e. if no one intervenes), it qualifies a number somewhere above 50% (i.e. most), and it says a consequence will result to some number above one (i.e. at least). Which is to say, AC A perfectly matches the stimulus by not going outside the limits of what could be true. It is this element of AC A that makes it the correct AC.

Student Question

So "novel" solution should be something that is not related to what is already under consideration, like inventing superseed that can resist anything bad.

, and proposing a specific way to enable an already-under-consideration solution is not novel, right?

Tutor Answer

That's exactly how I would describe it. Well done!

Student Question

Q4) C vs E

*Para 1 says — As a possible solution, agricultural researchers, development experts, and policy makers are “searching for ways” to conserve the wealth of genetic information contained in crops known as heirloom varieties

*Last Para says — author argued “knowledge system” should be preserved

Doesn’t this mean that other people recognized the potential of heirloom varieties as a solution, and author proposed an actual way to conserve it?

I thought the structure of the passage is

1 - problem/potential thing (heirloom) that can serve as a solution

2 - why it’s potential

3 - how to solve the problem with that thing (conserve knowledge system) & why it’s urgent

I’m not saying C should be an answer, I just want to know what makes E a better answer. The more are the better!

Tutor Answer

I think that you're right about the general structure:

1. There's a problem identified: North American agriculture relies heavily on a narrow genetic base, making it vulnerable.

2. There's a potential solution introduced: Heirloom varieties developed by indigenous farmers could help.

3. Now, the author does some expansion: Explanation of why heirloom varieties are valuable — genetic diversity, pest resistance, environmental adaptation.

4. The author emphasizes urgency and makes a proposal: Immediate steps are needed to preserve indigenous knowledge systems alongside conserving heirloom seeds.

Now, focusing on the central portion of your request: Does the author propose a novel solution [AC (C)] or support a promising one [AC (E)]?

Here's the key, in my mind:

*"Propose a novel solution" (C) means introducing an idea that others have not yet considered (which feels like it would be required for something to be "truly" new).

*"Support a promising approach" (E) means endorsing and expanding on an approach that people already recognize as valuable, backing it with further reasoning.

The author does not claim to be introducing a brand-new solution. In fact, the very first paragraph says "agricultural researchers, development experts, and policy makers are searching for ways to conserve" heirloom varieties — so others already recognize heirloom crops as important.

The author's main action with this passage is:

Strengthening that approach by emphasizing that it's not enough to just save the seeds — you must also save the indigenous knowledge that makes them thrive.

Urging immediate action to support this broader conservation effort.

Basically, the "solution" (using heirloom varieties) was already under discussion by others. The author's contribution is supporting that solution and adding nuance (preserve the associated knowledge too).

Thus, AC (E) ("support a promising approach to a problem") fits better than AC (C).

Student Question

1. I thought negating "should" makes it "don't need to", and "should not" is the opposite of should, but not the negation of it. To me, it feels like saying the negation of "more than X" is "less than X", not "no more than X", leaving out the "as many as X". Am I missing something? Please correct me if I'm wrong, because it feels like negating "should" in the wrong way will be detrimental.

2. If ~(should) = don't have to, it weakens the argument because if we don't have to avoid boring, then the author arguing that one is the best way because it's not boring completely loses its grounds, right? What if this were a MSS/MBT/inference question? is A supported?3. I already knew that "compatible" means 

can

, not 

guaranteed

. Sorry for not clarifying enough. I think maybe providing an example will help the clarification of my trouble.- Let's say the history courses' 

attainable

 goals are 

A, B, C, D, E

- Let's say there are only 4 ways to do this, 1) the one recommended as the best way in the stimulus, 2) the boring way in the stimulus, 3) approach X, and 4) approach Y- Let's say that even though 1) is not compatible with goal A (negated AC), it meets B, C, D, and E.- 2), 3), and 4) meet A, B, and C, respectively.- Can't 1) still be the best way, even if it isn't compatible with one of the attainable goals?

Tutor Answer

You're absolutely right to think carefully about how "negating should" works — and your understanding is on target: negating "should" means either "you should not" or "you don't have to," both of which would weaken the argument.

On your second point: if this were an MSS/MBT (inference) question, A would not be directly supported. It’s necessary for the argument but isn’t something explicitly stated, and inference questions require clear textual support, not assumptions.

Regarding your example about compatible goals, you make a very strong point. If the proposed method misses one attainable goal but still achieves more than any other method overall, it could still be considered "the best." This is exactly why AC (B) is a weaker necessary assumption: the argument doesn’t demand 100% compatibility with every attainable goal; it just needs to be better overall than the alternatives.

Your instincts about "not every goal must be met" are very sharp here. You're noticing a real nuance that many students miss.

Student Question

1. For the first question. i still can't get why it has to be compatible with ALL attainable goals... As long as the approach has highest overall effectiveness (=compatible with & can achieve most attainable goals), can't it still be the best way even if it isn't compatible with some compatible goals?? I first thought that (B) is "most→100%" error, but eliminated it only because it's based on the same thing as (D).

2. How is this question different from questions with 'descriptive → prescriptive' error? I get why C is the right answer, but I can't grasp why A isn't one.

I can't pinpoint how this is different from other Qs like 'exercise is good for your health, but this doesn't mean that you should do more exercise' or 'taking a train is the best way to get there, but this doesn't mean you should take train'

The only difference I can see is that these are 'X is the best ⥇ you should do X', but this Q is like 'X is the best because of Y → you should pursue Y / you should avoid ~ Y'

Did i correctly capture the key difference? (Being best isn't enough to be prescribed, but the reason why it's best should be prescribed?) if so, is this distinction always the case?

Tutor Answer

To your first question, I think it might be helpful to define the word compatible. The definition states: able to exist or occur together without problems or conflict. Seen in this context, the new method only must not get in the way of the attainable goals of teaching history.

For example, let's say that the attainable goals of teaching history are the following: 1 - all students obtain a grade of C or higher; 2 - each student is able to properly cite sources in a research paper.

Answer choices B and D, by saying the new method is compatible with these two goals, is only saying that the new method will not stop these goals from being achieved. It is not saying the they will be obtained, only that they can. The word compatible in this context is only saying that both goals can be obtained, without saying they are guaranteed to be obtained.

To your second question: this is different than "descriptive/proscriptive" flaw questions in that this is a necessary assumption question. These types of questions ask us to identify a gap in the argument, one that must be filled for the conclusion to remain true. It's similar to a flaw question (as the "descriptive/proscriptive" would fall under), in that by identifying a gap we are inherently identifying a weakness, but the purpose is different: we are being asked to find what would help make the conclusion true. In that sense, these questions are more similar to strengthening questions.

Looking at A might help make this clear: one should avoid boring one's students when teaching a history course. What if this was not the case? Specifically, what if one should NOT avoid boring students when teaching history? If so, then it cannot not be the case then "the best way to teach history" is by using a method which avoids boring students. Because if you shouldn't do something, then it can't be the best way to do something.

It is this aspect of A which makes it necessary: the conclusion cannot exist without us assuming A is true.

Student Question

Wouldn’t the translation of the first sentence be BA ←-some→ FC? Since the second sentence is GA → FC, I thought that the error was that you can’t get a conclusion from an all then a some statement. Why is it a mistaken reversal? The chained conditional logic would be GA → FC ←-some→ BA. From this, you can’t draw a conclusion at all, so why would it be different if the GA and the BA are switched?

Tutor Answer

This is tricky, because the "some" language does make it tempting to create an "GA --> FC BA" diagram. But there is catch: the argument is not saying that all good actions encompass every favorable consequence. This, however, would be the implication of the aforementioned diagram.

Thinking of it in this manner might help: is every favorable consequence a product of a good action? No, not based on what we learned. We only were told that favorable consequences are a necessary condition of a good action.

For example, if I said "All cats live indoors, and some people live indoors," that would equate to "Cats --> indoors people." Would that mean that some cats are people? No, it would not, because the necessary condition does not imply a sufficient condition. In this question, therefore, we cannot say some good actions are bad actions.

Student Question

Q23: Why is D-RADICAL a better choice than A and E. I do not see the difference between A, D and E. Q24: I do not understand the explanation of the video.

Tutor Answer

For Q23, D is correct because the author criticizes Popper for taking a real idea (the power of negative evidence) and pushing it too far by applying it in too extreme a way. Saying that negative evidence is all that matters and positive evidence has no value is a radical conclusion that goes beyond the basic logic. A is wrong because the problem isn’t that Popper applied the idea to a case it doesn’t fit—it’s that he overextended its importance everywhere. E is wrong because while exaggeration sounds close, the focus is not just about relevance to one theory; it’s about drawing an extreme conclusion across scientific reasoning more broadly. D captures that broader overreach better.

For Q24, the right answer is B because at the end of Passage A, the author says that when a prediction fails, there is rarely a simple, single disproof. In Passage B, when astronomers couldn’t predict Uranus’s orbit correctly, it didn’t automatically disprove Newton’s laws—they had multiple possible explanations, like problems with auxiliary assumptions. That matches exactly what the author of Passage A says about negative evidence not being conclusive. So B is the clearest match. But this is a tough question! Thank you for reaching out on that.

Student Question

Why B is not correct?

Tutor Answer

The issue with choice (B) is that, while it may be an illustration, it is not supporting the claim that “the criteria of legal responsibility for an action include but are not the same as those for moral responsibility.” The argument never made this claim. In fact, the argument makes the claim that legal responsibility is different than moral responsibility, but the argument never said that criteria for legal responsibility includes criteria for moral responsibility.

Student Question

It seems like this question relies on me knowing that moss + rainforests are major contributors to the amount of oxygen entering our atmosphere. Over time, I recognized that A did justify the argument, but not to the degree that B would. At the same time, unlike A, B required me to assume that the current rate of sphagnum moss depletion = significant reduction in the amount of oxygen entering the atmosphere. In fact, I wouldn’t have needed to make any assumptions with A. So, with that in mind, I picked A over B.

My question is - is there any way for me to get this answer correct without that outside knowledge? And, if you didn’t also have this outside knowledge and were down to A and B, how would you have justified accepting B’s assumptions?

Tutor Answer

I can see where you’re coming from for this problem. I would say that for this problem, it’s implied by the wording that “millions of acres” would be significant. We don’t want to make too many assumptions, but if it’s implied by the wording of the argument, it’s ok. The argument also wouldn’t really make sense if we were depleting something insignificant, and we are trying to make the argument work for this question type.

Student Question

Why is D not correct?

Tutor Answer

For this problem, we want to find an answer that goes against what the consumer advocate is saying. The consumer advocate says that instructions should make the assembly process easier than without instructions. Choice (D) says that most people understand the instructions, which doesn’t go against what the advocate says, so it can’t be the correct answer. If most people understand the instructions, that seems to support the idea that instructions should make the assembly process easier. Choice (C) says most people assemble things really easily without instructions, which weakens what the consumer advocate is saying about instructions, and therefore is the correct answer.

Student Question

I can see why the other ACs are wrong, but I am struggling to see why E is right.

Tutor Answer

Right off the bat, I think it's important to note that this is an objectively difficult question. Having some questions here is totally normal and expected.

To help cut through the complexity this question, let's first start with the answer choice itself. What is actually being said in E?

The first part of the sentence says: "If a weather pattern with a natural cause has a seven-day cycle..." Understanding this clause is crucial in understanding the answer choice. Why? Because this clause restates the exact same kind of weather cycle described in the stimulus.

Modifying the clause might help make this clear. By changing it to "If a weather pattern with a seven-day cycle has a natural cycle" we now see that the weather pattern being described is simply one with a seven day cycle. A limit is being applied to the scope of the cycle describe in this AC in order to make it the same as that described in the stimulus: The stimulus gave us a seven-day cycle, and this answer choice is now providing us with the same thing.

In effect, then, this part of the answer choice is saying, "if nature caused the type of weather pattern describe in the stimulus.."

All together, and based on our understanding of that first clause, the full AC is saying: "If nature caused the type of weather pattern described in the stimulus, then that cause occurred on a seven-day cycle."

Why does "seven day cycle" matter? Because that is the only type of weather pattern referenced in the stimulus. By doing so, the author limited natural causes to those that occur over a seven day time period. But herein lies an assumption: not all weather patterns necessarily occur over a seven-day time period. For example, what if a two-day cycle of weather created the type of weather pattern described in the stimulus (i.e. 7 days in total: five sunny, two cloudy)? If that was the case, then the fact that seven-day cycle's of weather have no appreciable effect on the kinds of weather pattern described the stimulus would be largely irrelevant. Other natural causes, those not referenced by the author, might be causing that weather pattern.

Which is why AC E is so crucial to the author. The statement "If nature caused the type of weather pattern described in the stimulus, then that cause occurred on a seven day cycle" precludes that very possibility. The causes of that weather pattern, in which five days of sun and two days of clouds occur, have now been limited to seven-day natural cycles. In turn, since we already know that naturally occurring seven day cycle do not cause measurable weather patterns, it remains possible that only humans are too blame. It is for this reason that AC E is the correct answer.

Student Question

I understand answer choice D to be attempting to weaken the plausibility that life (plants/microbes) was causing the carbon 14 to be in the 1.2-billion-year-old rocks.

I thought of this alternative cause like this:

Carbon 14 in Atmosphere —cause—> Carbon 14 in rock.

But since plants and microbes release Carbon 14 into the atmosphere after they die, how come answer choice D would weaken the argument if Carbon 14 released into the atmosphere from life (plants/microbes) causes the Carbon 14 to be in the 1.2-billion-year-old rocks?

I thought of it like this:

Life (Plants/Microbes) —c—> Carbon 14 in Atmosphere —c—> Carbon 14 in 1.2 billion rock.

Tutor Answer

Answer choice (AC) D is an objectively tricky AC. It's very tempting, because it seems to provide evidence showing life was present in soil 1.2 billion years ago. If that was the case, then this AC would indeed strengthen the argument.

But that is not what is being said in D. Instead, D tells us that C14 entered the soil directly from the atmosphere, soil of which then formed into rocks. In turn, C14 present in those same rocks would not be indicative of life. Why? Because by directly entering the soil from the atmosphere, it is no longer the case that "plants" or "microbes" were necessarily present.

D is highlighting an easily overlooked assumption: C14 is only ever captured and released into the atmosphere by plants or microbes. But what if non living things could perform the same action? If so, the presence of C14 would not be indicative of life. AC D provides us with just that scenario.

Student Question

I understand this question more now that I’ve watched the video but I’m having trouble understanding the logic chains. Are there videos or lessons you can refer me to that go over the logic chains.

Tutor Answer

A solid foundation in logic, specifically formal logic of the kind used on the LSAT, is important in understanding how to diagram conditional statements (i.e. logical chains). For this, I highly recommend reviewing the 7Sage Core Curriculum. Here you will find the following sections:

*Conditional and Set Logic

*Logic of Intersecting Sets

*Formal Logic Flaws

I recommend completing each of these sections. But in addition, and to learn specifically how to create the kinds of diagrams used in this question, I recommend also reviewing both the "Psuedo-Sufficient Assumption" (PSA) and "Sufficient Assumption" (SA) sections as well. These sections will focus more on "filling in the gaps" of logic chains in order to find sufficient assumptions. That skill in particular is very important for both PSA and SA questions.

Student Question:

How does having Lind NOT guarantee Knight? There just has to be two max

Tutor Answer:

You’re right to notice that there can be up to two authors included, but the specific logic from the stimulus gives us a stronger relationship between Lind and Knight. From the last sentence, we know that if the book contains Knight, then it must also contain Jones, and it cannot contain Lind. That sets up two conditional rules: K → J and K → /L.

When you have a conditional statement like K → /L, and you know that the necessary condition (/L) is not true—meaning that L is present—you apply a rule of conditional logic: when the necessary condition fails, that forces the sufficient condition to fail too. In other words, if we have L, we must also have /K. So having Lind in the textbook guarantees that Knight cannot be there, because the failure of the necessary condition reflects back and forces the failure of the sufficient condition. That's how we get to the correct answer choice of A--which is our must be true response!

Student Question:

I do not see how E is wrong. Can’t the indy pet stores not sell fish and still sell birds?

Tutor Answer:

First, take a look at the diagrammed image of the stimulus below. To begin, just so we’re on the same page about the abbreviations from my diagram: PS stands for Pet Store (that is, any Pet Store in West Calverton), EB stands for Exotic Birds, TF stands for Tropical Fish, G stands for Gerbils, and Ind stands for Independently Owned.

Now for answer choice E—you're absolutely thinking along the right lines in noticing that an independently owned store might not sell tropical fish and still sell exotic birds. But the key here is that the question is asking what must be true, and E only could be true, not must. If you look closely at the second image, you’ll see that the rule for independent stores is: Ind → (/TF or EB). I got to this relationship by taking the contrapositive of these two conditions.

That means an independently owned pet store must either not sell tropical fish, or sell exotic birds. It’s an or relationship, and in logic, an "or" means that satisfying either condition is enough. So if we know an independent store does not sell tropical fish, the rule is already satisfied—we don't need to know anything further about whether they sell exotic birds. They might, or they might not.

Since the rule doesn’t guarantee that exotic birds will be sold in this case, E is not something that must always happen.

As for the correct answer, D, it's actually working off of the same rule that E is. Except in the case of D, we don't need to take the contrapositive of the conditional. D may be converted into formal logic as the following: TF + /EB --> /Ind. This is precisely what we have in our original diagram, and it must be true in all cases.

Student Question:

When will the answer choice C be correct in this sort of flaw question? Does the conlcusion need to specifically include the word only for it to assume there is no other sufficient?

Tutor Answer:

Let's start by discussing the question itself. Answer choice C is wrong here because the argument is not presuming that plagiarism is the only factor contributing to professional misconduct. Instead, the flaw is that it assumes a causal relationship just because there’s an association between plagiarism and later misconduct. The argument says that reducing plagiarism will reduce misconduct, but it never claims or even implies that plagiarism is the sole cause. Therefore, C is too strong for this flaw. The correct answer here is E because the argument infers the existence of a causal connection merely on the basis of a correlation/"association"—students who plagiarize are more likely to later engage in misconduct, but correlation alone isn’t enough to conclude causation.

Now, let me answer your original question. Answer choice C would be correct in a situation where the argument treats one factor as being the only significant cause of an outcome, without considering or ruling out other possible causes. Importantly, the conclusion does not need to literally use the word "only" for that flaw to be present. What matters is whether the argument’s structure acts as if there are no other possibilities. If the argument functionally assumes that one cause alone fully explains the outcome, while ignoring the possibility of other contributing factors, that’s when C would match.

You can see a similar flaw to that described in C in PT 117 Section 2 Question 25, which you can find here: https://7sage.com/discussion/2373/pt117-s2-q25-the-first-bicycle-the-draisienne-was

In that question, the correct answer is E: "ignores, without giving justification, alternative possible explanations of the initial failure of bicycles." There, the argument sees that bicycles initially failed to catch on and assumes a particular cause for that failure, without considering other possible explanations. In both cases, the argument improperly ignores other possible causes and treats a single observed factor as if it fully explains the outcome, even though alternative explanations could easily exist.