@Wishmeluckokay Nice point about causation. You changed "affects how one perceives reports" to "negatively affects how one perceives reports." That does make this a much better weakener because it specifies how this will affect their perception.

However, answer A is also still incorrect because it is the reverse of the causal relationship we need.

The economist's only premise is "spending trends correlate very closely with people's confidence in their own immediate economic situations." I'm going to draw this correlation assuming that less confidence means less spending:

(less) confidence in own situation -- c --> (less) spending

The economist concludes that therefore negative news reports do not decrease spending.

To weaken this argument, we need to get into this causal chain and add

negative news --c--> less confidence in own situation

Added to the argument, we get negative news --c--> (less) confidence in own situation -- c --> (less) spending

That is what answer D does.

I'm drawing A's correlation, using the fix you suggested and assuming that less is confidence means negative perception

less confidence --c--> negative (perception of) news

There are two reasons this doesn't work.

1) We cannot add this to the author's argument. We don't know what would weaken a person's confidence in their economic situation to the cause in answer A is not triggered.

2) We don't know how perception of the economy affects spending (because the author disagrees with the claims in the first sentence) so this answer cannot cause anything to happen to spending or the economy. (Your suggested answer did fix this! However, the first issue still remains.)

So there are a few reasons A is wrong. It is both the reverse of the causal relationship we need AND, as you pointed out, it doesn't tell us the direction of the effect.

I hope this helps!

Student Question:

I’m still having a lot of trouble with conditional reasoning questions (specifically parallel flaw) and for PT110.S2.Q6 I’m just stuck on understanding the stimulus and why B is correct even though there isn’t a conditional statement in the conclusion? If you have any tips for understanding these types of parallel reasoning questions that would be greatly appreciated!

Tutor Response:

Thanks for your question! I'll explain the specifics of this question, and then suggest some helpful topics to study.

Explanation

For parallel reasoning questions, I like to read the argument, identify the conclusion and premises, rephrase them with general terms, and then say the implied logical rules that make the conclusion follow from the premises.

For this argument, "for" indicates the premise:

Premise: "If such an action is justified, then one would be behaving rationally, not irrationally."

Paraphrase: It is impossible for something to be both justified and irrational.

Diagram: justified → /irrational

Conclusion: "The notion that one might be justified in behaving irrationally in the service of a sufficiently worthy end is incoherent."

Paraphrase: It makes no sense to say someone's behavior is both justified and irrational

(The conclusion does not have conditional indicators or a clear conditional relationship in it, so instead of diagramming, I'll just say "X cannot be both justified and irrational.")

We can say the unstated rule between the premise and the conclusion by filling in the formula "if premise, then conclusion." Here, that becomes:

If (P) two categories are mutually exclusive, then (C) it is impossible for something to be in both of those categories.

So in the answers, we don't need a conclusion with a conditional statement. Instead, we need a premise that says two categories are mutually exclusive and a conclusion that says something cannot be in both of those categories.

B's premise, "Spilling it accidentally means that the act will not have been done intentionally," gives two mutually exclusive categories, accidentally and intentionally. The conclusion says that a specific action (in this case spilling a glass of water) cannot simultaneously be in both of those categories.

Helpful Topics to Study

Based on this question, conclusion and premise indicators, conditional indicators, and parallel question approach could all be helpful topics to study or review. Some of these topics may already be familiar, but I hope this gives you some ideas for where to start reviewing!

Student Question:

The passage tells me “Nonrepressors have similar physiological responses when they encounter such situations and consciously inhibit their display of emotion”—so if nonrepressors experience the same thing as or similar thing as repressors. How does it make answer choice A correct? I just got the answer right through POE. Also, how would it make the conclusion to follow logically? I cannot seem to make that connection.

Tutor Response:

You're absolutely right that A does not make the conclusion follow logically! Great job analyzing how A fits in with the other premises.

A is the correct answer because this is not a sufficient assumption question. So A does not have to ensure that the conclusion is true and follows logically.

Instead, this is a necessary assumption question. The stem asks, "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?" Necessary assumption questions ask for the bare minimum. They may not improve the argument much, but they must be true if the argument is going to have even a chance of working.

Let's use the negation test for necessary assumption answers on A. First, we'll negate A. It becomes "Encountering an emotion-provoking situation is sufficient to cause nonrepressors' heart rates to rise sharply." Next, we'll see if it destroys the argument. If the situation alone can raise the nonrespressors' heart rates, even without them consciously inhibiting their emotions, then there is an alternate explanation for why the nonrepressors' heart rates go up, and the premise no longer supports the conclusion.

Student Question:

I disregarded answer choice A for being too narrow in that it is saying there are other endangered species that are among the most important environmental problems other than large mammals. Why must there be another endangered species? Why isn't a better phrasing something like: “The most important environmental problems involve things other than large mammals,” or just “species?”

Tutor Response:

I see your point! When I first read answer A, I also thought, "Why do these species have to be endangered?" It seems like the argument would work if there were an environmental problem involving microorganisms regardless of whether they are endangered.

However, this phrasing in answer A actually addresses another assumption the conclusion made. The argument concludes "Publicity campaigns for endangered species are unlikely to have much impact on the most important environmental problems." Nothing else in the premises talked about endangered species, but the author assumed that the microorganisms discussed in the premise prove that publicity campaigns for endangered species will not be effective. This idea in the conclusion has to connect to something in the premise. The author assumed that the microorganisms are relevant to campaigns for endangered species.

There is also a great explanation of this right at the end of Kevin's video (12:06).

Student Question:

For answer choice E, why can't you say they thought it was valid?

Tutor Response:

I had the same reaction! What if these people care about safety and so they consult what they think are objective sources?

That's a very natural real world response, but we have to take these LSAT answers very literally. It feels like E should say "Anyone to whom safety is an important factor in purchasing a car will try to consult an objective source of vehicle safety information before buying." That's a natural thing to argue.

But E makes a very extreme claim. "Anyone to whom safety is an important factor in purchasing a car will consult an objective source of vehicle safety information before buying." No exception.

We can diagram this:

safety important → consult objective source

Contrapositive:

/consult objective source → /safety important

If someone consults an advertisement because they think it is objective, at the end of the day they still have not consulted an objective source. So it must be that safety is not actually an important factor to them.

Student Question:

I don't understand couldn't you argue that the claim People generally notice and are concerned about only the most obvious public health problems supports the fact that most people are currently well aware that contaminated water presents a much more widespread threat to our community? I think in the video he says it does. Because you could say the reason why most people are aware of the contaminated water is because people notice and are concerned about most obvious public health problems.

Tutor Response:

I see your point! I think that in another argument, the claim about what people notice could support the fact that people are aware of contaminated water. That argument would look like this:

• Premise 1: "People generally notice and are concerned about only the most obvious public health problems."

• Premise 2: The threat posed by contaminated water is the most obvious public health problem.

• Conclusion: "Most people are currently well aware that contaminated water presents a much more widespread threat to our community."

However, that is not how this argument uses it. In order to make the claim about what people notice could support the fact that people are aware of contaminated water, we had to add in another premise that is not present in the argument. (Even with that premise, this argument technically still doesn't work because in Premise 1, "only" is a group 2 necessary condition indicator, so it translates to people notice → obvious problem rather than obvious problem → people notice.)

This argument does not tell us why people are aware about contaminated water. It could be because of the principle in the first sentence, but it could also be for several other reasons. Maybe a news outlet ran a story on it last week. Maybe the mayor gave a speech about it recently. We don't know.

Instead, we have to take the argument on the terms given to us. "Hence" indicates that the last sentence is a conclusion. So the argument in the stimulus is

• Premise 1 (rule): "People generally notice and are concerned about only the most obvious public health problems."

• Premise 2 (fact): "Most people are currently well aware that contaminated water presents a much more widespread threat to our community." (Tells us that air pollution is not the most obvious problem.)

• Conclusion: There is unlikely to be a widespread, grassroots effort for new, more restrictive air pollution controls at this time.

Or, as a diagram

• Premise 1: people concerned → most obvious problem

• Premise 1 Contrapositive: /most obvious problem → /people concerned

• Premise 2: air pollution → /most obvious problem

• Conclusion: air pollution →/people concerned

So while another argument could use that principle to explain the awareness about water, this argument does not.

Student Question:

I chose D through POE but was hesitant since the stimulus said the generalization had not been tried in every "feasible condition," so I thought this went against the idea that it was confirmed to the extent current science allows. How is D correct?

Tutor Response:

Nice job using process of elimination (POE) on a tough question!

I see where you're coming from. If there are tests that could have been run and were not, then it seems questionable whether this theory really has been confirmed "to the extent that current science allows" (answer choice D). However, the PSA question stem, as well as the context of "every feasible condition," still support answer D

PSA Question Stem

This pseudo-sufficient assumption asks for the principle that most justifies the generalization. The correct answer will likely give very strong support for our conclusion, but it does not have to make the argument airtight. So even if the generalization in the stimulus is not guaranteed to fall into the category of generalizations that have been "confirmed to the extent current science allows," D can still be correct if the generalization in the stimulus would likely fall into this category.

Context for "every feasible condition"

I see three reasons that "every feasible condition" does not necessarily mean scientists haven't confirmed the theory to the extent current science allows. You can pick whichever explanation makes the most sense.

1. "Feasible conditions" does not mean conditions in which it is feasible/possible to perform scientific experiments given current technology. Instead, it likely refers to any conditions that could reasonably be expected to happen in the future. If global warming could foreseeably melt all of the icebergs, this would be a feasible condition, something that is physically possible. However, scientists cannot currently run tests to see if the generalization still holds true if all the icebergs have melted. So there can be feasible conditions that current science is not able to test.

2. Following up on that, the stimulus says that the generalization "has not been tested in every corner of the universe, under every feasible condition." It does not say "in every corner of the universe or under every feasible condition." The core of the sentence says the generalization has not been tested in every corner of the universe. "Under every feasible condition" is a descriptive phrase set of by a comma. It describes what is immediately before the comma (experimenting in every corner of the universe). I take this to mean that scientist could have tried all feasible conditions in places that they can reach but have not been able to run these experiments in every place in the universe. They haven't been able to experiment on Jupiter, so they haven't tried all feasible conditions on Jupiter. They haven't been able to experiment in another galaxy, so they haven't tried all feasible conditions in another galaxy.

3. The stimulus says, "Given our current state of knowledge and technology, we can say that the generalization ... has not been falsified by any of our tests of that generalization. So we conclude it to be true universally." I think it is fair to read this as saying that the tests that have been run to the extent that current knowledge and technology allow.

It's terrific that even though you got this question correct, you are taking the time to understand the right answer. This is a great study habit that will help you to understand how to spot the right answer to a tough LSAT questions even when it is phrased in a strange way.

Student Question:

Is (D) further irrelevant because we’re trying to deal in the people who do actually publish, and the number that the editor uses erroneously (99%), and (D) just gives us a descriptive claim about that group of people instead of what we need, which is showing that the argument misjudged the group?

Tutor Response:

That's a good description of what is wrong with answer D, that it just gives us a descriptive claim about a group, instead of explaining how the argument misuses that group.

There are two groups of people who download music:

• (99%) People who don't publish their own music on the internet

• (1%) People who do publish their own music on the internet

To point out the flaw and show why the majority of music on the internet could still be reworked versions of downloaded music, the correct answer needs to point out that this 1% of people who publish their own music could still be responsible for the majority of online music. (That's what answer A does.)

Like you said, D gives us an irrelevant descriptive claim, that this 1% who publishes music puts every piece of music they create online. As long as they still could be responsible for most Internet music, doesn't matter whether they put all their songs online, publish some of it on other platforms, or never publish some music they create.

Student Question:

Question for (A). I understand why (D) is the answer, but I don't see how (A) is wrong, especially with the reason being how it is reversed.

I initially thought the assumption was that 'confidence in the economy' and 'confidence in own's own economic situation' do not affect one another. This would then lead us to situations mentioned in (A) and (D).

If A is true, then..

Confidence in one's own economic situation affects, how negative reports are perceived, which affects

confidence in the economy, which affects

people's willingness to spend money (the economy)

This one-way direction causal line would explain how 'confidence in one's economic situation' and 'willingness to spend money' are correlated (as mentioned in the stimulus), while also showing that how negative reports can affect the economy. Therefore, the Economist's conclusion would be weakened.

Also the explanations say that the author assumes that 'confidence in the economy' does NOT affect 'confidence in own's own economic situation'. However, as mentioned above, I thought the author was additionally assuming that 'confidence in own's own economic situation' does not affect 'confidence in the economy', which is why I was probably confused with (A).

Tutor Response:

Thanks for explaining your reasoning so thoroughly!

Your chain of causes is complete, but it doesn't work to weaken the economist's argument because it relies on something outside of the economist's argument.

For this question, it is important to remember that the first sentence is the opposing argument that the economist is arguing against. The claim the people's confidence in the general economy shows up in the claim the economist is arguing against.

We have to accept the economist's premise as true, that spending is correlated closely to people's confidence.

To weaken the economist's argument, we need to attack the link between that premise and the conclusion that "media critics are mistaken [when they say negative news reports harm the economy]."

The economist's argument just gives us

• confidence in one's own economic situation affects

• people's willingness to spend money (the economy)

To prove the economist wrong (or at least weaken the argument), we need to show that negative news reports do harm the economy. We can do that by adding "perceiving negative news reports harms people's confidence in their own economic situation." That is essentially what D says. So our new chain is:

• News reports affect

• confidence in one's own economic situation, which affects

• people's willingness to spend money (the economy)

A reverses this causal relationship, (claims confidence in one's own economic situation affects perception of news reports) so it does not provide that link.

Student Question:

For answer choice B - the explanation says “notice that the argument concerns how the class 'should' be listed. This is a separate issue from how the class "can" be listed." Is this something that can be a general rule? If the stimulus contains prescriptive language, we shouldn't choose an answer choice that involves 'can' or 'cannot'. I'm just trying to see when and where this can apply.

Tutor Response:

First off, well done for looking for ways to apply what you learn from this question to other questions. That is a great habit that will help you get the most out of each question you practice!

I think the general rule is to be skeptical of answers that say "can" or "cannot" when the stimulus contains prescriptive language; however I would not automatically rule it out. For example, we could rephrase C, the correct answer, to say "the approach taken to the readings is the only determinant that can be considered when describing how a class is listed." (This edited answer definitely sounds closer to something prescriptive because of the added "only," but it still uses the word "can.")

I say this to caution that you should not immediately reject an answer based only on the word "can." But you're right to pull a general rule from this: If you see "can" in an answer after a prescriptive stimulus, note that as a red flag.

(If you are under time pressure and looking for a way to eliminate answers when you don't have time to be as accurate as possible, then you could eliminate all answers with "can.")

Student Question:

Nevermind the fact that an AP questions about an unstated assumption is diabolical, I feel like the problem generated that C is referring to is its own problem regardless of whether patients who do take penicillin develop superbacteria or not. The problem is those people who have dental fillings who haven’t taken penicillin somehow develop superbacteria, independently this could be a problem with or without the suggestion that C proposes?

Tutor Response:

I think your point is fair, that we don't absolutely need the assumption in order for patients developing super bacteria to be a problem in need of solving.

However, C does not say the assumption is absolutely necessary to creating up the problem, only that it does help to set it up.

The stimulus tells us exactly what the problem is that is troubling scientists: they are "puzzled about the development of penicillin-resistant bacteria in patients who had not been taking penicillin." They specifically wonder about patients who have not taken penicillin because if these patients had taken penicillin, there would be an easy hypothesis for how the bacteria developed resistance. Scientists thought they knew the cause of penicillin-resistant bacteria was penicillin, so the existence of these bacteria in patients who have not taken penicillin is puzzling. This makes the observation about patients with dental fillings a problem.

Regardless of whether we need it, the assumption is still there, and it does help to set the problem up.

(P.S. Diabolical is a great word for this question stem!)

Student Question:

I don’t understand how E isn’t correct by bridging the gap between “ USED mainly, and often solely, as decorative objects” and “initially VALUED as objects of adornment”. How can we assumed that used and valued are the same thing without bridging the gap?

Tutor Response:

Great job being skeptical and looking for as many unwarranted assumptions as possible!

You're right that it's an assumption to say that used and valued are the same thing, but the stimulus gives us enough support to make this a reasonable assumption. The premise says these objects were often used "solely" as decoration. It's reasonable to conclude that if they only have one purpose, that it likely what they were valued for. There is also a premise buried inside the conclusion sentence. "Thus, it is natural that beads, which were initially valued as objects of adornment, also came to be used as currency." The conclusion the author is trying to prove is that "it is natural that beads ... also came to be used as currency." "Which were initially valued as objects of adornment" is a premise, a fact supporting that conclusion.

The answer that most helps to justify the argument needs to address a more important gap.

The much bigger assumption is that because other objects that were used for decoration became currency, we should expect beads would also eventually be used as currency. Because C addresses that gap, it most helps to justify the reasoning.

In a pseudo-sufficient assumption question like this one, the correct answer may not completely resolve all assumptions, but it will give a lot of support and tackle the most important assumption.

Student Question:

For D, if dinosaurs did not inhabit the northern half of the region, would that not mean that the only other place they could be living is the southern region, but that could be impossible because it's all water, so it would be impossible for them to be living in the southern region, so then they would have to be living in the northern region during the Cretaceous period. What am I missing?

Tutor Response:

I get where you are coming from! Answer D tries to bait us into an assumption that is attractive but ultimately unsupported: that dinosaurs can only live in this region.

The question discusses the southern half of a region, and the answer talks about the northern half, which makes it sounds like this covers all of the livable land.

However, this is just a random region. The first sentence calls it "a certain region of the earth." The stimulus did not rule out the possibility that dinosaurs live outside of the region. Dinosaurs "roamed the earth," so it's possible they lived somewhere besides this region.

Student Question:

Honestly think I got the question wrong because I didn’t know what biomarkers are. Do you have tips for how I can do these kinds of science-based questions when I lack familiarity with the material? Thank you!

Tutor Response:

Biomarkers is absolutely a technical science term that most people are probably not familiar with. (I certainly had no idea what it meant when I started reading this question!)

Fortunately, when the test-writers use technical terms, they define any terms that you need to understand in order to see the logic of the stimulus.

In this question, there is a comma right after biomarkers. This comma introduces a phrase that explains what biomarkers are: "molecules indicating the past or present existence of a living organism." While this definition also sounds science-y, it uses words that we can translate more easily without any scientific expertise.

• Molecules: really small things

• Indicating the past or present existence: showing that there is or was something here

• Living organism: something alive, like plants, animals, or bacteria

This definition helps us understand that biomarkers are small things in the petroleum that show that at some point, there was some living thing in it.

Now we can weaken the argument by showing how even if there was something alive in petroleum, that thing was not necessarily a plant or animal. D gives us that by presenting a living organism, bacteria, that could leave these molecules in the petroleum, even if there was never a plant or animal in it.

For future science-based questions, look to see if the test-writers defined the term. If they defined it, translate the definition into your own words to understand it well. If they did not define it, then don't worry because its exact definition will not be crucial to understanding the logic of the argument.

Student Question:

I’m having trouble seeing how (C) is aligned with the author’s proposal. A part of the author’s proposal is that teachers spend very little time on dates and statistics of historical figures. Wouldn’t that mean that they would still spend at least 1 second on dates and statistics? I’m having a hard time seeing how the stimulus would also commit the author to being okay with spending no time on dates and statistics.

Tutor Response:

You are spot on about the author's proposal. The author does suggest that history teachers have to spend at least 1 second on dates and statistics.

I think what caught you here is the EXCEPT stem. We have to rule out the 4 answers that are in line with and are assumptions required by the argument and then select the answer that isn't required. You perfectly explained why C is not an assumption the author makes, and that is why it is the correct answer to this question.

Student Question:

I don't understand couldn't you argue that calling the picaro the trickster is like calling a pine tree evergreen even though it's not evergreen is like saying that calling the picaro a trickster even though its not a trickster?

Tutor Response:

This is a tough wrong answer. (I remember making a really long WAJ entry about D when I was studying!)

For an analogy of how the term "trickster" relates to picaro, we need 1) a comparison based on superficial characteristics that 2) incorrectly obscures essential differences between the two things compared.

People incorrectly call the picaro a trickster because it has some superficial similarities. However, at its core, the picaro is different from a trickster.

Answer D describes calling the pine tree an evergreen despite superficial differences. A pine tree does not look like an evergreen because its needles fall off. However, whoever classified the pine tree looked past this superficial difference when classifying it as an evergreen.

Further, the passage argues that it is incorrect to call the picaro a "trickster" but D does not indicate that it is incorrect to call the pine tree an "evergreen." This might be a correct classification.

Student Question:

I am having trouble understanding why D is unsupported. The passage states “Aurignacians had a more secure life than the Neanderthals. No one under constant threat of starvation, the reasoning goes, could afford time for luxuries such as art.” Answer choice D includes the words “less hostile” which I interpreted as “more secure.” I thought “less hostile” could mean “more secure” because less hostility signifies things like less environmental dangers, less threats of starvation (which is explicitly stated in the passage,) etc. Therefore there is more explicit support for D as opposed to C whose support is more implied. Could you explain why “less hostile” does not equate to “more secure” in this case?

Tutor Response:

First of all, great job looking for textual support for the answer choices. That is a great way to determine between the right answer and a tempting wrong answer.

The difference between what the passage says and what answer D says is most obvious when comparing "life" to "environment." The passage says they had a "more secure life" but D says they had a "less hostile environment." A less hostile environment could certainly cause a more secure life but so could many other factors. Maybe the Aurignacians had an environment even more hostile (worse weather, more saber-tooth tigers) than the Neanderthals, but their life was more secure because they had better social cohesion, or they were better at storing food, or they knew how to make fire.

So the issue is less about whether "more secure" implies "less hostile" and more about how more secure life does not prove anything specific about the environment.

Student Question:

For A, I thought it was a potential weakness as the more often they forecast, the more likely they are to be correct. So they have a benefit then the popular news.

Tutor Response:

It's true that the more often they predict rain, the more likely it is that they will be correct at least once. However, what we care about is their rate of accuracy. The more times they predict rain, the harder it is for them to just have dumb luck.

If I flip a coin once and randomly guess heads or tails, I have a 50% chance of being right. However, if I flip the coin 10 times, it's almost impossible that I will guess correctly every time (the odds are 1 in 1,024 to be precise).

So the more times the station forecasts, the less likely it is that their accuracy is just a couple lucky guesses and the more likely it is that they are able to make reliable predictions.

Student Question:

I don’t understand how b doesn't strengthen - if were saying our planets orbit circularly and they didn’t encounter another planet to throw them off orbit it would make sense that they don’t orbit ovally. If they encountered another planet and then still orbited in a circle it would prove our conclusion unlikely.

Tutor Response:

Great question! I think that is the best possible argument that you can make for answer B. However, it does require the assumption that if one of our planets had encountered another planet, that would have resulted in an oval orbit.

More importantly, B also weakens the argument. It says there is no evidence of planets being affected by close encounters with other planets in our solar system. This leaves the argument with zero evidence that a planet is capable of affecting another planet's orbit. So you can argue for and against the conclusion using B.

The question asks which answer most strengthens the argument. C is the correct answer because it only supports the argument. It says that some distant stars have multiple planets orbiting them, which is an assumption required for the argument's conclusion to work. It helps the argument a lot, and it does not weaken it.

Student Question:

I didn’t choose correct answer D when I did this question because I thought “moderate alternatives” meant completely different solutions, such as food coloring or another pink-coloring chemical. How are you supposed to infer that “moderate alternatives” refers to sodium nitrate in smaller amounts or less excessive amounts? Also, if the answer choice actually said what I thought it was saying, would it still have been wrong? Thanks!

Tutor Response:

Thanks for highlighting an important part of the correct answer choice!

We don't actually need to know exactly what "moderate alternatives" refers to in order to answer this question. Pre-phrasing in the stimulus by describing what the flaw is, and looking for referents in the answer choice can help us pick D no matter what these "moderate alternatives" might be.

Describing the Flaw in the Stimulus

This step will set us up to be on the hunt for something like answer D. The argument explains drawbacks to using sodium nitrate, then concludes that we should NEVER put ANY sodium nitrate in sausages. This is too extreme. The premises might support reducing sodium nitrate, but we need a lot more support to prove that it is never okay to use any amount of sodium nitrate.

Describing the flaw prepares us to look for an answer choices that calls out the conclusion for being too extreme.

Looking for Referents in the Answer Choice

When we see a comparison like "more moderate," we should ask "more moderate than what?" D is describing alternatives that are more moderates than "the solution [the argument] recommends." That solution is the conclusion: NEVER put ANY sodium nitrate in sausage. So the "more moderate alternatives" are any solutions less extreme than totally eliminating sodium nitrate.

We can translate D to "The argument does not provide sufficient justification for preferring the extreme solution to never use sodium nitrate over less extreme solutions."

This describes the flaw in the argument regardless of what the less extreme solutions are. I think that these solutions could be different, like the food coloring option you suggested, and the answer would still work so long as we remember that these solutions are more moderate (less extreme) than the argument's problematically extreme solution.

Student Question:

Do you have advice for getting to (A) without making the unstated connections? I tend to struggle with these types of questions in the 150s PTs that are more rooted (no pun intended) in real life, if that makes sense.

Tutor Response:

This is a tough question! (I remember writing a very long WAJ entry on this one when I was studying.)

It's great that you want to look at just what the stimulus gives you without brining in outside assumptions. That's an important skill to master. However, this question does rely on a small bit of real world knowledge to see how the right answer works.

To get to answer choice A without this unstated connection, you can eliminate all the other answer choices. Then, even if you don't bring outside knowledge in, you can select A because it is the only one remaining.

Understanding answer A is through the unstated connection that 1) termites burrow underground and 2) grass roots are underground. That connection has to exist for A to work.

But what is encouraging is that this is very general knowledge. This question does not require you to know anything about termites or desert grasses. Instead, the word "burrowing" means digging underground, and all you need to know about plants is that they have roots underground. So while there is technically an unstated connection, it does not go very far outside the words that are already there.

It seems like you are noticing several questions that are "rooted" in real life. One way you can practice this is to go through these questions you have found, look for the evidence in the stimulus that leads to the unstated connection, and make note of what general knowledge the LSAT considers fair game for the test.

P.S. Here is a fun video about fairy circles from the bottom of explanation page on this question!

Student Question:

I got tripped up arguing for (D) thinking that a “ certain behavior is more prevalent among members of one population than it is among members of another” could mean that the argument is erroneously attributing the cheating on tests population to be disproportionately engaging in professional misconduct compared to everyone else. Is this wrong because it’s way too much of a jump to be making, whereas (E) in plain terms is accurate?

Tutor Answer:

Good work seeing how E is accurate!

As for D, this answer choice is not very specific about which members and which population it is referring to. Your interpretation makes sense, that "a certain behavior (professional misconduct) is more prevalent among members of one population (students who cheated) than it is among members of another (everyone else)." That lines up exactly with the premise, "students who plagiarize are more likely to engage in subsequent professional misconduct."

D is not correct because it claims the argument "takes [this] for granted." The argument does not take this for granted--it's not an unstated assumption that we have to make on our own. Instead, the argument explicitly states this fact and uses it as a premise.

Student Question:

For answer choice C, what would be an example of this? I have seen this type of answer choice a couple of times now.

Tutor Answer:

In LR stimuli, typically background information is compatible with either accepting or rejecting the argument's conclusion. Premises, conclusions, and counterarguments are not neutral. They support either accepting or rejecting the argument's conclusion. But neutral background information that does not attack or support will be compatible with accepting or rejecting.

For an example of an argument part question in which the correct answer says the claim is compatible with accepting or rejecting the argument's conclusion, check out PT108.S2.Q22. The first two sentences both look like premises, but only one of them leads to the conclusion. The other sentence does not relate to the conclusion, so it is compatible with the conclusion being true and with the conclusion being false.

Your question is fantastic because it shows that you are looking for common patterns across LR questions. Keep up the good work!

Student Question:

Initially I was stumped at this question. I used conditional reasoning/logic and got the right answer. Did I do this the right way because I see no diagrams used to come up with the correct answer. If I wasn’t supposed to use conditional reasoning, then how did you arrive at the right answer? The explanation totally confused me. Thank you.

Tutor Answer:

Great job getting this question right!

There definitely are conditional relationships in this stimulus, but typically diagramming does not help test takers to find the right answer on this question.

How We Can Know That Diagramming Won't Help:

A Must Be True question is looking for us to make an inference from the statements in the stimulus, but the diagrams this stimulus create do not lead to any inferences.

The diagrams would be:

skilled banjo -- most --> skilled guitar

skilled guitar -- most --> /skilled guitar

We know this won't lead to any valid inferences because generally the only time two "most" statements can create an inference is if the same term is on the left side of the arrow:

A --most--> B

A --most--> C

In this case, we can know that some Bs are Cs. (For more review on this, see the Logic of Intersecting Sets module.) But that's not the situation in this stimulus, so diagramming likely can't get us to the inference.

How We Can Infer Answer A:

There is a group of people who are both skilled banjo players and skilled guitar players. This group is the majority of the skilled banjo players in the world but a minority of the skilled guitar players. So there must be more guitar players than banjo players.

To illustrate this, we can use any number to represent this group--let's say there are 5 of them. This 5-person skilled-banjo-skilled-guitar group is a majority of the skilled banjo players.

That means there can be at most 9 skilled banjo players in the world. (Once there are 10 or more, then the 5 who are both skilled at banjo and guitar are half or less than half or that group.)

But there have to be at least 11 skilled guitar players in the world. (Once there are 10 or less, the 5 who are both skilled at banjo and guitar are half or more than half of that group.)

Student Question:

Sorry, how is A right when the stim says that the amount of grapefruit juice is "prescribed"... so if a patient is prescribed to take 5ml of juice then that's all they will have to take... so how can the "chemical be unpredictable glass to glass" when the amount of the grapefruit juice is "prescribed"

Tutor Answer:

You're absolutely right to point out that the stimulus already controlled for the amount of grapefruit juice.

What (A) is getting at is that the amount/proportion of chemical in that 5mL of juice could vary. Maybe some jugs of grapefruit juice are 0.1% that chemical and other jugs are 50% that chemical. Then the same amount of juice would have highly unpredictable amounts of chemical from glass to glass. (That 5mL glass could have 0.005 mL of chemical or 2.5mL, and we'd have no way to know!)