Hi! This is amazing. Thank you for this. How long do you study a day?

This is an example of a question that we have to be REALLY flexible. For example, in the stimulus it was NEVER stated which one they prefer. However, they are showing that they prefer scientific laws than social science. This is important!!

I crossed out A because I felt like A was way too strong and it states “preferred” .. but thats not a smart way to cross out an answer sometimes!!

I chose E because I focused on the fact that society S gives everyone equal basic liberties and that the jobs associated with the inequalities are open to all. I mistakenly assumed that those two conditions alone were enough to make the society just. However, I overlooked the word “unless,” which means that if inequalities in income and wealth are allowed, they must not only be attached to jobs open to everyone, but must also benefit everyone. Since answer choice E never states that the inequalities are to everyone’s advantage, there is not enough information to conclude that society S is just.

Why D conforms to the principle

The principle says that a society is just if and only if:

1. Everyone has an equal right to basic liberties.

2. Any inequalities in income and wealth are permitted only when they benefit everyone and are attached to jobs open to everyone.

Flaw takeaway:

Pay attention to strong language shifts in the conclusion. LSAT arguments often move from a weaker claim (“A is the best”) to a much stronger claim (“non-A things are neglected or unimportant”) without proper support.

I would like more lessons like this! Thank youuuu

@Bobby68 OMG! I love this explanation. Thank you! I originally got this answer right but I honestly just want to understand why the others are wrong and you hit the benchmark.

Thanks again :)

A, B, and C are all wrong for a similar reason because they introduce information about employment or worker types that the conclusion does not actually depend on. The argument is only focused on whether more than half of Centerville residents who are unskilled full-time workers would lose their jobs if the shoe factory closed.

Choice A talks about overall employment versus unemployment in the town, B compares the number of unskilled workers to skilled workers in the population, and C compares unskilled workers to skilled workers within the factory itself. None of those comparisons matter to proving the conclusion.

The real gap in the argument is whether the workers employed by the shoe factory are actually residents of Centerville, which is why D is necessary.

At first I chose B because the stimulus focused heavily on the tests, observations, and measurements, so I thought the argument was mainly describing the testing conditions and details. I didn’t initially notice that the author was actually making a recommendation.

When I reread the last sentence, I caught the phrase “any serious amateur astronomer ought to choose the Exodus,” which showed that the conclusion was recommending what serious amateur astronomers should buy. That made me realize D fit better because the argument uses the experiences of a smaller group of amateur astronomers to make a recommendation to the larger group.

E is focused on the curator's response and not on what the Art Critic is actually stating. The curator is stating that the choice to change the central figure’s cloak back from red to its original green is justified. However, the art critic does not say anything with the color change so E would not be a great conclusion for the art critic's response. Whereas C, it's saying that the planned restoration won’t make the painting look the way it did when Veronese was alive. Therefore, a good conclusion would state that the restoration will fail because the art wont look the same (Basically what C states).

E was definitely tricky but I prevented myself from actually choosing this answer choice because the Art Critic does not say anything about the color green.

This is great! Thank you. I'm open to join again in May :)

@ravioli I agree

@Dylan_Rispoli Great explanation! Thank you

I made a HUGE mistake and would love to share. So I chose D because I was thinking if the masonry house was far more expensive, then it probably had better materials, stronger construction, or higher-quality workmanship, which could explain why it survived while the wood-frame house didn’t.

I understood that reasoning, but it was based on unstated assumptions, like the idea that "more expensive" means better earthquake resistance. At the same time, I did understand C: if the wood-frame house had previously been damaged in a flood, then its structure would already be weakened, making it more likely to collapse during an earthquake.

The difference is that C directly explains why that specific wood house performed worse, whereas D depends on me adding extra assumptions about cost and quality.

@Max Hi Max, I was a bit confused on answer choice E as well. Now it makes sense to me. So basically, the stimulus is saying that "all philosophy classes serve students well," although he did only have support/evidence that SOME of those classes served students well. Essentially, he is mixing up "all" and "some."

I hope that makes sense!

I initially thought the conclusion was that the assumption about humans being unselfish is false (choice C). This felt like the main point because it was a strong and attention-grabbing claim. However, after breaking down the argument, I realized that this statement is actually a premise, not the conclusion.

My mistake: I focused on the most striking statement instead of identifying what the argument was trying to prove.

Takeaway: The conclusion is not always the most surprising or bold claim. Often, especially when it appears early, the rest of the argument is there to support it. I need to ask: “What is the author trying to prove?” not “What sounds the strongest?”

@A2 Hi! Invite me to the groupchat as well. i'm interested

Interested

This lesson HELPED a ton!!!!

Do you come up with the How or ..?

I'm not understanding the "Not necessary" part.

Hi Caden.j.t.reed,

The statement about blue eyes is supported by the claim that "those with blue eyes can have relatives," leading to the conclusion that having blue eyes is largely determined by genetics. While the conclusion may align with real-world implications, that alignment doesn't invalidate the statement. As long as the conclusion is supported by evidence or reasoning, the premises do not need to explicitly state the conclusion for the argument to hold. I hope that clarifies things!

I thought the subject was leaders...

hardware is a modifier