Improved achievements, I suppose, = higher GPA. Thought that was an assumption I couldn't make, but it makes sense now.

Action some of its consequences.

If morally right = best consequences, then no situation can we know what action is morally right.

Best consequences can never be known. Best consequences are never known because only every know SOME consequences. So to know best you need to know more than some.

Answer (C) is even stronger than this.

I read this as it would be unrealistic to make works of fiction if writers followed SJ's advice. The stimulus is saying fiction would not reflect reality (or be unrealistic) if all the bad guys were chopped. It must be that some bad guys in real life have attractive qualities if its unrealistic to not portray fiction as so. C is very strong, but that works for sufficient questions.

My reasoning for picking B was the correct reasoning, that the author fails to consider that judgements of taste can be objective (objective means everyone agrees). I picked B because I didn't like any of the other answers, its easy to see that objective wouldn't mean that everyone agrees. I need to remember that "takes for granted" on the LSAT means "makes an unwarranted assumption about..." after remembering that, C is the perfect choice.

I guess when you negate C ( it is not true that different corporations have different core philosophies), even though all existing corporations have the same core philosophies, it does not stop it from being true that by having a new philosophy, you wouldn't not be considered a new corporation different from all the others.

@joejoseph I did the same thing, I think its wrong because the stuff about the students is not highlighted. Who knows rlly

viewed this as a necessary assumption question; you need to assume C for the historians argument, but obviously it doesn't explain why the historians believe these plays to be unrepresentative of reality.

Definitely interpreted this question stem wrong. I wrongly assumed that information on the amount of airtime could be paired with information on the viewership and the cultural influence. Question stem is saying ONE STUDY, not paired with any other information, what can be answered.

The historical examples are not irrelevant. Conclusion states "democracy (as a whole) does not promote political freedom." This conclusion includes all democracies including historical ones. A historical democracy without political freedom is relevant, but does not prove democracy does not promote political freedom. This historical example could of had some other factor going on causing oppression or maybe it was missing something important like checks and balances. The answer will establish this idea, this false dilemma.

Answer D is saying that the stimulus does not factor that democracy may not be sufficient or necessary for political freedom. In the historical example, democracy was not sufficient for political freedom, but democracy plus some other thing could have been sufficient. The necessary part refers to the second example of despotisms and oligarchies. In these examples, there was political freedom without democracy.

@SarahHolmes754 The consequence is the impossible scenario of giving the highest priority to all of the necessary departments.

So C is valid but irrelevant?

@ArdenAmarelo Three defendants only two lawyers, they can't get a third, someone has to share.

Stimulus is saying one defendant shares legal counsel with a codefendant (share a lawyer). Because the plaintiff orders to question each codefendant without their codefendant's lawyer and two of the codefendants share a lawyer, this court order cannot be upheld. Why? Because everyone has a right to a lawyer and the judge won't ask one of the codefendants to find their own lawyer. The plaintiff can never question the codefendants without one of the other codefendant's lawyers being present, therefore the judge is right to not grant the plaintiff's request.

I am still so confused as to why C is definitively wrong. If the physics peer review system was 100% effective why should physicians change to match Biology?

If this was a necessary assumption question I would understand why this is wrong, but this question stem is just asking to strengthen. How does C not strengthen the argument by getting rid of the possibility that the peer review system is 100% effective and therefore not conductive to progress to change?

Realized in the BR these types of questions, "most helps to support," could be looking for an additional premise to strengthen the argument. Does not always need to force the conclusion by eliminating a different hypothesis.

At least my stem background helps with these questions

I got it down to A and B, but ended up going with A because I thought "why would business owners not be considered residents?" 😭

Don't forget to use the highlight tool to help remember the necessary conditions! Helped me answer the question under the time limit 😁

so the point is to turn hypotheticals into premises, right? In order to make it easier to understand...