Got his question wrong in the timed test, then got right in the blind review. I also was very torn between A & E in timed and chose E over A.
The reason I did that was because I failed to identify the relationship in question. The relationship in question is whether the termites are the ones to cause fairy circles so:
Termites => fairy circles???
I failed to understand that I should not ask whether the termites are there - the premise already says that they are there. Answer choice E would be rights if the question would be doubting if there are termites. But the question is rather hypothesising a relationship between termites and fairy circles.
What A instead does is that it eliminates the alternative hypothesis that is the lack of vegetation from the animals that ate the grass, very strong wind in this particular spot or even the ascendance of aliens at this spot. It shows that the process responsible for the lack of vegetation is instead under ground at the root level - exactly where the termites operate. So A is the right choice.
The way to get this right at the timed test is to clearly identify the relationship in question and the variables between which the relationship exists. (2) Guess the answer because then it's harder to be tricked.
I got this question wrong in timed and then right in blind review. It is a justify question / RRE question.
Principle says that we should not feed birds if that prevents them from surviving on their own.
The key here is relationship between: feeding & surviving.
Situation: Bird lovers feeding birds.
So the situation gets in the middle of the relationship in the principle. This implies that that the bird lovers feeding decreases survival.
The question asks us to make an exception to the principle. The key here then is to show that the bird lovers feeding birds does not decrease / increases their possibility of survival aka complies with the overall relationship of the principle.
Let's look at the answer choices:
A does the opposite
B benefiting humans is irrelevant to bird survival relationship
C irrelevant to the relationship of bird survival & feeding
D I chose this one in timed. I think that is because I was overall looking for the idea of survival and I guess that protecting habitats helps survival. But also the principle here is the feeding & survival. So I got this question wrong because I did not focus on the correct variables.
E This is the correct answer choice because it connected the feeding & survival and provides and explanation to why human feeding is okay for wild birds and actually facilitates their survival.
TO get this right in the first place, I think I need to: clearly identify the relationship the principal is talking abotu and the two variables there. (2) Guess the answer before picking it - I cannot be tricked if I know what I am looking for.
This is a weaken question.
Henry: battery cars -> decrease urban pollution
Umit: battery cars -> keep the same / increase pollution from power plants
So the mechanisms that both Umit and Henry provide for the effect on pollution is valid. The question is how to kind of "reconcile" the two to make Henry's argument valid. The gap here is the difference between the total polution and the pollution just in the cities, that is urban pollution. That is the domain that the two are arguing abotu is different. The correct answer choice would point to the difference in this domain and show that the increase in pollution from power plants would nto impact th e cities and that the solution would decrease.
That is exactly what answer A does.
Let's go through the wrong answer choices:
B - "offsetting" does not mean decrease in net. It can means that the level of pollution is compensated for, neutralised to the previous level that was there before the battery powered vehicles.
C - but a change to the electric cars generally implies increase in the need for electricity. There was never previously a discussion of small/big batteries. This is not helpful & somewhat irrelevant.
D - but both speakers never mentioned anything abotu hybrid vehicles or their effect on pollution. This is irrelevant.
E - don't care about this, it may still impact pollution
Time strategy: I have to spot the issue and then find an answer, not tailor the answer the to issue. I get confused because I do not know what I am looking for.
This is a reconcile question. So essentially I need an alternative hypothesis that would introduce a new variable that would explain everything.
I find that with the resolve reconcile and explain it is easier to look at the answer choices after reading the stimulus because there are so many possible answers to the RRE discrepancy hypothesis.
Usually:
Wet weather => Increase in mosquito diseases
Wetland habitat:
Drought => Increase in mosquito diseases
So we need a hypothesis that would explain why specifically in wetland habitats drought causes increase in mosquito-borne diseases. I would expect the answer to be focused on mosquito quantity and some form of condition that is specific to wetlands.
A Okay, this does not really tell us anything. Does nto mention drought/wetlands at all.
B This does not explain the drought/wet periods and mosquito relationship. It is out of the domain.
C This is the correct answer choice because firstly, it mentions wetlands and a mosquitoes. This makes this answer choice already better then A & B. Then, it introduces the third variable: aquatic insects that prey on mosquito larvae. This variable well explains the discrepancy. With the droughts here is a decrease in the number of predators and thus an increase in the number of prey. This is logical. So the answer choice then starts to make sense. I do think it could have been made even more effective by stating that insects die in drought, as that would help to solidify the argument, btu overall I think this answer choice is sufficient to be right, which it is.
D Okay, so there are different types of mosquitos. And what? The answer could be right if it went a step further - there is a type of mosquito that becomes aggressive in drought or that has to support larvae survival through blood causing it to bite more or a mosquito type with larvae maturing during drought. These are multiple steps to be taken for this to be right, but the answer choice given now is definitely not enough.
E How are plants connected to mosquitos? I have no idea. Again, this could be connected - more plant means more places to hide mosquito larvae that would then mature immediately after drought is passed (imagining here). But once again,t his takes only one step towards potential explanation and it is not enough.
The way to get this right in timed section:
Identify variables -> rule out A&B
Read the alternative hypothesis - C D E - this about which one would require less assumptions to explain the conclusion. Which one would make most sense as the explanation, would require less steps and assumptions. Turn to C, as it is the one that is most obviously explains the difference.
This is the weaken question.
Critics: the device is dangerously distracting
Executive: Out devices are safer then others. So the device is not dangerously distracting.
Analogy:
Critics: Ukraine is a dangerous country.
Executive: Ukraine is less dangerous than Romania. So Ukraine is not a dangerous country.
The author establishes a counterargument based on a comparison. But it does not address the argument itself, offers no evidence for the counterargument.
That is exactly the answer B.
I will go through the rest of the answer choices:
A There is no principle here
B The correct answer.
C There are no conditionals
D Wrong, the executive claims the opposite - that the communication device is not the same
E There is wrong. there is no presumption in premises
To get this faster in the timed practice:
Really try to imagine two people arguing in just two sentences. Think about what I would say as the "critic" based on the reply on the executive. I think the key here is also knowing what you are looking for before going to the answer choices.
This is a sufficient assumption question. So we need to choose the answer that, if true, would automatically make the conclusion true.
So the idea here is that the stimulus says that there were cases of flu A last year. There are also new cases of flu B this year. And it concludes that A+B = more then last year.
For this to be true, I would expect several assumptions that are possible:
There are more cases of flu B this year than total cases of flu last year.
There is the same or higher number of cases of flu A then last year. There is also at least 1 person with flu B.
Either of those can make the conclusion automatically true.
I will go through the answers:
A) Don't care about approaches
B) Don't care about how rare it is for them to appear
C) But we are taking cases. You can dress or not address all you want, but the case of flu infection is still registered while it occurs. This is irrelevant.
D) The danger of the flu does not imply its popularity. There can be a very rare flu that is very dangerous. But if the number of flu A cases is much lower and there are a few very dangerous cases B, the overall number is not higher then the last year.
E) This is a great answer. I think it is formulated in a confusing manner, but the answer basically says what I have outlined in my second bullet point: It indicates that there is the same number of flu cases A this year.
To get this faster in the timed test: I have to to be harsher with eliminating answer choices that do not address the core issue = number of cases. DO not fall for the alternative hypothesis given in C, D this is not a reconcile question and also the focus of the question is different. Read till E and don't be afraid of the phrasing.
most valuable -> only 2 weeks display
most sensitive to light -> only 2 weeks display
SAM (only 2 week display)
------------------------------------------
SAM (most valuable piece in the collection)
So here, it is visible how the author assumed
1) Necessity-sufficiency confusion
2) One sufficient condition over the other even & that it is exclusive
So we need to find an argument with those two features for the answer choices. Let's start reading.
A) More about timing. No conditional in sight. Wrong.
B) Yeah, this is a wrong answer, the answer is about the past vs present. Just a mess here, does not replicate.
C) About the author/source of the map/mistakes. No.
D) the first two sentences were good representation. But the last sentence, while being logically sound, makes this answer choice wrong.
E) PERFECT!
HM -> Purple dots
Hospitals -> Purple dots
WS (purple dot)
----------------------------------
WS (hospital)
Amazing, this is the correct answer: there is both the sufficiency necessity confusion and the rejection of one sufficient condition over the other.
TO get this right on the timed test, just DON"T BE SCARED. Just because this is a parallel reasoning question and parallel flaw reasoning question does not mean it is going to be incredibly hard.
Okay, so I got this question wrong in the timed test and then this question right in the blind review. Let's look for what I need to do to get it right first and fast.
So with discrepancy questions I find it useful to bring the stimulus down to one short sentence or like a dialogue.
The values of the culture are in folktales / But the folktales of different cultures basically just adapt the same stories
OR
Dialogue:
Alisa: I will learn the relationship of Ukrainian culture to death through folktales.
X: But folktales of all cultures say death is bad and sad.
Alisa: Yeah, but the way Ukrainian folktales invoke christianity and agricultural metaphors shows they value God and being close to nature (okay, not sure if those are representations of the values, but for the sake of time, lets just stick with this).
So essentially, the idea here is that EVEN if the morale is the same, eg death is bad and sad, the way we talk about it and how we interpret it, eg. by alluding to God and nature, can tell us about he values of the culture. So WHAT can be the same but HOW can be very different, and this difference points us to the true cultural values.
Now, lets look at the answers:
A) The issue is not in WHO but in the difference between WHAT and HOW. We don't really care about whether the folktales tell individual or communal perspective.
B) Cute. Don't care. The answer does not in any way show the difference between the oral or written. This could be attractive if you make assumptions about the change in medium as the reason for adaptations, but honestly not sure hwo this would be an issue.
C) So this is perfect for the reconciliation of the WHAT and HOW and points directly to the example I created above. The moral might not be different but the metaphors and the context and the scene and the characters of the folktale may tell us a lot about the values of the culture of the folktale.
D) One sided support. This does explain why the values persist and have longevity, but does not tell about why the values are different across cultures.
E) This is a one sided support answer. It reinforces the idea that the folktales are a good source of values. But it does not reconcile the difference between WHAT and HOW.
How I have to approach this question differently to get it right on the first time: I have to stop and think after I read the question. Actually just think abotu understand the relationship and the discrepancy here. Try to make up a small example as I did with he Ukrainian folktales.
Okay, so in timed I put B here, and in untimed I got the right answer C.
I will now deconstruct this, go through all the answer choices and also derive a lesson from this to show how I can improve for the timed conditions test.
The hypothesis: it could only have been a scavenger, not a hunter
Premise: It has been argued that the immense size of Tyrannosaurus rex would have made it so slow, it would not have been able to chase down its prey
Conclusion: This, however, is an overly hasty inference
Premise:T. rex's prey, if it was even larger than T. rex, would probably have been slower than T. rex.
So, just by breaking down this stimulus into different elements, I can immediately eliminate D & E.
Now, I have to choose between A, B, C. For me to choose this, I would have to actually understand the relationship between the premises, concl, the hypothesis.
Particularly the two premises can help derive the correct answer. The important element here is that the argument of stimulus does not reject the premise that supports the hypothesis. Instead, it says, YES AND... there is prey slower. So what it does really is just saying, okay, you are right but this is not enough to make the conclusion you are making, there are other considerations. So I would expect the correct answer that would draw on this dynamic - the answer choice that is not a straight out NO, but rather is a softer version of like yes you are right about the facts, but no you are not rigth to be making the conclusion based on these facts, they are not enough.
So, this is exactly what the answer C is doing. It says that the "T. rex could only have been a scavenger, not a hunter," is a hypothesis that the argument attempts to undermine by calling into question the sufficiency of the evidence. Exactly what the stimulus is doing.
I will also reject the answer choice B. As I said, what we want and answer that is more soft and points towards the lack of evidence rather then a pure rejection of the hypothesis. What I will also say tricked me up here is the word probably. I think I am used that in MBT, inference, parallel reasoning etc., the answer should reflect the logic of the stimulus & the reasoning type it uses. But this is a DIFFERENT QUESTION TYPE, I need to identify the part of the argument & name it, not provide the logical extension or mirroring. The answer may or may not reflect the reasoning type here.
Lastly, A is a differently phrased version of B. The answer choice implies that conclusion and hypothesis are mutually exclusive and goes directly against each other - one says YES, another one says NO. That is not the case. Also the phrasing of "logically inconsistent" makes me immediately think of conditional reasoning. So another stimulus component I would expect is a conditional reasoning that messes up necessity or sufficiency or fully misrepresents something. In the end of the day, this answer choice is quite harshly worded, so one again I would either expect a wildly and fully inconsistent claims e.g., YES/NO; or a serious fuck up in the conditional reasoning.
So now, what shoudl I do to get better at the timed test.
1) I think the issue here is that I just jumped to elimination without taking time to think abotu the sitmulus itself & the relationship between its different parts. It's harder to get tricked if you know what you are looking for.
2) Another thing, is considering the strength of the yes/no that the argument is presenting. Here it is very weak, more like yes & yes, but... . So the strength of the confrontation either from the argument parts relationship or the tone itself is important.
3) Lastly, the lesson I will take out of this is that in the argument part questions I do not need to. seek an answer that corresponds with reasoning to the situmulus, e.g., the word probably does nto have to be int eh correct answer. The task here of the correct answer is not to reflect, extend or infer the logic. It is to just identify, in any phrasing or logic or reasoning as long as it is accurate fo the real role of the sentence in the stimulus.
@AlisaBella On how to get this answer correct for the timed conditions: once, again, keep my head cool for the parallel reasoning. It looks terrifying but if you have a clear understanding of the conditionals, then this is an easy guaranteed correct answer. I also should not be afraid to sketch - I could have gotten overwhelmed simply because there are too many arrows to hold in my head, even if the logic itself is easy.
@AlisaBella
A)
ec collapse -> /fair
ec collapse
Okay, necessary condition fulfilled, I don't care already.
B)
ec collapse -> /fair
/ec collapse
Okay, sufficient condition negated, not the necessary one, don't care anymore
C)
responsible -> possible to say should done diff
/possible to say should done diff -> /responsible.
Okay, I see how this is a tricky wrong answer. The rule is correct BUT the second sentence does not apply the rule - it just provides the negation of the rule in the first sentence. The stimulus has a rule + application of the negated rule. This answer choice has a rule + the negation of that very same rule.
D)
responsible -> greater then competitors
/greater them competitors
-------------------------------------------------
/responsible
YAY. This is the correct answer.
E) Just in case I read from E to A, I will deconstruct this answer choice. Actually, I just reread it, never mind. It has no conditional's and also just a weird one. Wrong, move on.
Okay, so I skipped this one on the timed test because it is the parallel reasoning question, the hardest one for me to deal with. During blind review, I chose D.
The stimulus deconstruction:
More realistic -> fall views
/fall views
------------------------------
/more realistic
So essentially, this is the standard structure of (1) rule; (2) negation necessary assumption; (3) negation sufficient assumption.
I need to find the same structure answer now:
@AlisaBella What I should do differently here under timed conditions is: I think I need to sort the sentences into buckets. Honestly, I feel like I only really understood the question and the correct answer as I have written out the comment here.
@AlisaBella Now, I will go through the rest of the answers:
B) Not supported. I can't even sort this question into either the intuition or the solving buckets. Wrong answer.
C) Don't care, not supported at all.
D) Don't know, don't care.
E) No. Because there are also two other ways:
Solve -> 1 of the premises is /true
-> conc doesn't follow logically from prem
No, it is possible because the argument requires "any one of the three things." You can still solve the paradox even if you accept that the conclusion of a particular paradox is true. Wrong.
Okay, this is the thought one. I picked B in timed and A in the blind review.
I will start form stimulus deconstruction:
The first sentence is content. Don't care.
The second sentence tells us about the intuition.
Intuition -> conc is false
-> concl follows logically from prem
The third sentence tells us about solving the paradox.
Solve -> conc true
-> 1 of the premises is /true
-> conc doesn't follow logically from prem
AHA I spot lots of overlaps.
1) To solve the paradox, I could accept that the conclusion in true. But then, that would directly contradict the intuition of the conclusion is false.
2) To solve the paradox, I could say that 1 of the premises is not true. But then, it would contradict that intuition tells me that the conclusion follows logically form prem (which can not happen if they are or some ovf them are false)
3) To solve the paradox, I could argue that the conclusion doesn't follow logically from premises. But that would directly contradict what the intuition tells me - the the conclusion follows logically from premises.
SO, essentially what is happening in all combinations is that to solve the paradox, I have to go against my intuition.
Which points exactly to the answer A.
I did not answer this one because I got scared of the parallel & Flaw & conditional. But it was actually quite easy.
Study history -> appreciate differences
reflect on your own civilisation -> appreciate differences
-------------------------------------------------------
study history -> reflect on your own civilisation
This should be quite an easy parallel reasoning to spot.
A)
study anc art -> appreciate accomplishment
appreciate anc art -> ...
Okay, at this point I dont even have to continue
B)
learn latin -> improve vocab
study great works -> improve vocab
---------------------------------------------
learn latin -> great works of literature
PERFECT!
No sense in doing the rest because they are wrong. But given that I sometimes like to read the answer choices from E to A, I will deconstruct them too.
C)
traveling other countries -> deepen appreciation -> enc... no need in reading further, this is wrong
D)
study hard -> internalize good habits
positive mental attitude -> retain habits
Nope, the Necessary conditions have to be the same, wrong, won't keep reading
E) read daily -> informed about the world -> ... don't care already, it's already wrong.
Okay, so eventually B is the right answer. I think for me this is the lesson, that I have to keep my head cold and not get intimidated by the question type. It can be easy to spot if I just read & don't overthink. It is normal to do method of elimination fro this type of question, so I should not start freaking out before actually getting to answers. I honestly think I would just get this question rigth just on intuition, vibes and a "feeling" of the logic ig, if I actually kept reading.
My issue here is that I struggled to understand to which the "former" relates to - first or the second group? I realised in blind review that it is about the first group. So essentially answer B is saying: they (Some people who prefer to avoid facing unpleasant truths) will sometimes treat those in the latter group (People who like nothing knowingly withheld from them) in a manner (conceal information) the members of this group (whc like only knowing stuff) do not like (not giving them information aka forcing them to now know stuff).
In any way, this questions & answers are essentially just a test for the grammar & ability to understand the subject.
Okay, I chose A in a timed and D, the correct answer, untimed in blind review.
The stimulus deconstruction:
Last sentence rule:
deliberate stop of life functions
&
do not resume following the procedure
->
manslaughter
So now, in the answer choices, I have to find the rule that states that.
The way I am learning to think about this is:
A) This principle cannot be stated. There are very many procedures that could result into the patient's death. And doctor's don't get charged with manslaughter every time.
B) We do not know if the medical procedure is known to carry a very high risk of causing the patient's death. No information on this is provided in the stimulus.
C) So this was actually an answer I thought quite a bit about because it shows intend, which is also the thing indicated in the stimulus. However, it did not include the second condition for the menslaughter inclusion, which is "if these functions do not resume following the procedure." So it is one sided, provides only partial justification. Also, just logically this does nto work. It puts the intend to the necessary condition, and the guilt of manslaughter in the sufficient condition. The stimulus does the opposite. SO this would be the sufficiency - necessity assumption confusion.
D) So this has all the conditions outlined in a stimulus: (1) deliberately bringing about the cessation; (2) if the cessation is permanent. It perfectly works with the stimulus.
E) This is kind of the opposite of what the stimulus says, so it does not justify anything.
I chose A because I got overwhelmed. I did not know what cessation is (english is a second language here) and the "if and only if" freaked me out. I think I need to pay more attention to lawgic here. Deconstruct the last sentence & find the rule that states it explicitly. That could be the part of the correct answer choice pattern for the conditional & justify questions.
I think the main issue with the A & D trade off is that the they both kind of make sense. However, the way I am making myself think:
1) Why A:
The stimulus is SCREAMING at us to choose A. The conclusion explicitly specifies that "politicians are could persuade more voters." The premise specifies that in the case of professors, "they are more persuasive to their professional colleagues."
Therefore, the analogy between the two breaks in that the audiences are fundamentally different - the people you are trying to get to vote for you vs your colleagues.
2) Why not D:
The stimulus specifies in both cases that persuasion is the aim. In the premise about the professors, "makes .... those positions more persuasive to their professional colleagues." And in the conclusion about politicians: "they could persuade more voters with their arguments."
I have personally chosen D because I have not read attentively enough and skipped over the words "their colleagues" and "persuade more voters." But in blind review after reading it correctly, it is easily understandable why this answer choice is wrong.
Guys, how do you get your mind clear for the pre-test? I am going through a hard time right now, and I just have lots of annoying and bad thoughts at the back of my mind constantly, and I just can't seem to ever get them out of my mind, especially during a preptest. I think it greatly impairs my ability to perform to my full potential. Any tips you use?
A guy called Tom is working as the writer for the local fishing guide for the sake of the 17.17 CAD minimum pay. He doesn't really like or care for fish at all, but the job market is tough and he has to pay for his LSAT prep materials somehow. So when he is tasked to write a report for the fishing guide for what species of fish in the pond has best adapted to living in the polluted water, he remembers that the most populous fish in the pond is also the one that has adapted best to living in the polluted water. He simply goes to ChatGPT and asks: "what are the most populous fish in the Stillwater Pond?" ChatGPT, which determines answers by the amount of mentions in the web, says that the those are bullhead catfish. ChatGPT does not take into account that the recent study says that goldfish are the most popular fish in the pond (I would love to make up something more realistic, but like Tom I dont really gaf about fish), as it was mentioned only once on the web, in comparison with numerous posts and articles about bullhead catfish caught and seen by the visitors in the Stillwater Pond (like 20 years ago before pollution started). So then Tom, pasting from ChatGPT, publishes the article saying that the bullhead catfish best adapted to living in polluted water since bullhead catfish are the most populous fish species in Stillwater Pond. And just like that, local fishing guide mistakenly believes that some fish species other than the bullhead catsish is the most populous fish in Stillwater Pond=> D is the correct answer.
I always watch videos because by the time I watch them I already have done question as part of a drill, in blind review and over again after blind review knowing I got it wrong . I find myself too annoyed &tired of the question to read, so I just watch a video. I also think that the videos breakdowns are more in depth, and I like that it goes chronologically through the question and also a hearing a human voice helps to not get too annoyed at myself.
So I tried to apply lawgic to this. For the passage it is:
basic, depth, investigatory -> breadth independent -> understand significance.
And then when I translate D into lawgic, it is
analyzed (investigatory), detail (depth) -> easy to understand any (breadth independent)
Which I think is suiting. But what confuses me is the indicator "any" in the "easier to understand any Greek tragedy." Does any here imply that it has to go to the sufficient condition? But then answer choice D doesn't work? Or does "any" just mean "other ones"? Or should I not translate this to lawgic at all?
Got this question wrong in timed and then right in the blind review. This is my favourite (no) parallel flaw question.
The issue here is that the stimulus is loaded with two flaws.
First, just because the substance is sweeter does not mean that the drink made with it is sweeter. There can be less of the substance. Or there can be a lot of other substance that makes the drink much less sweet e.g., lemon. So the conclusion here exhibits a part-to-whole flaw.
Secondly, the conclusion presumes that just because the people regularly drink the aspartame drink, they will develop a preference to extremely sweet products. But what is, softly,t he drink is not sweet at all (as per the last point). Or what if the person hates the extremely sweet drink btu has to drink it because they are running a marathon and need to consume a lot of glucose in the most efficient manner. Nothing here entails development of preference or even liking the drink in the first place.
Substance:
So, I would expect an answer choice that presents either or, even better, both flaws here. The correct answer should assume that just because a certain part has certain property, the whole must have the same property. This is likely to be a comparative and comparative. And/Or it should assume that regular consumption leads to a preference.To be honest, I would expect an answer that resonates with the first flaw. I think it is more explicit here and it also has a type: part-to-whole. The second flaw is just a load of assumptions.
Form:
Has comparatives. Has conditionals.
Let's look at the answer choices:
A There is nothing parallel about this reasoning - no comparatives at least. I think it is trying to appeal to the second flaw by pointing out that a person may dislike the food and still develop preference? Even if so, this is not parallel at all and very weak.
B Has most. The stimulus has no quantifiers.
C Has comparatives. Has conditionals. This is part-to-whole. Just because one entity is bigger then the other does not mean that the accumulation of one entity aid bigger then accumulation of another entity given that we have no information that the accumulation of both entities is the same.
D Has comparatives. Has conditionals. Wrong because infers on the past events. This is not part-to-whole.
E Has no conditionals.
Strategy for the timed test: First, identify form & eliminate answer choices on this basis. Then identify substance and eliminate answer choices based on the substantive flaw.