I think the only way you can really pick answer (D) is if in the final paragraph the author noted that even with the ingredient swapping, you should still consider perfume-making an art form. Maybe I am wrong. I would appreciate if someone knew why this is not necessary.

Got this wrong because I read the question stem as being a sufficient type. "Properly drawn" is almost always used for sufficient assumption questions.

Sufficient assumption questions sound like this: "which of one of the following allows the conclusion to be properly drawn?"

If a question stem has "requires" its most likely necessary. Tsk tsk.

That first sentence is so essential. Wow. This hurts.

Got this wrong because I read "benefit themselves" as only being attached to other acts. Easy to see now.

Is the only reason answer (D) wrong because it is in the second paragraph?

Second paragraph says you have the right not the duty. Duty means you have to do something, not having the duty means you do not have to do something. So its not sufficient that you have to lie to him.

The questions asks "most help to make the suggestion in passage A that a harmless pathological liar's tall tales would not constitute reason to lie to him (second-to-last sentence of passage A)." It never asks you to refer to the rest of passage A's argument. So the explanation for answer (D) does not make sense. "This doesn't bring us any closer making the rule compatible with the suggestion in passage A (the suggestion being that just because a pathological liar lies, that doesn't make it acceptable to lie back to him)." We are not talking about what is acceptable, we are only trying to make it not sufficient. Saying you do not have the duty makes it not sufficient.

You could argue that having the "right" could make it sufficient, but passage B says "the Kantian argument leads to a right rather than a duty." Rather implies one or the other. It can be assumed that having the right does not make it sufficient to lie, because you are not obligated.

Regardless, answer (B) is stronger because it is states "to act toward a person as that person has acted toward others is to treat that person as a rational being, that is, as if that person's act is the product of a rational decision." This is a conditional claim.

Treat others as you were treated --> Rational decision

Patho L --> /Rational Decision --> /Treat others as you were treated

Even if the legislation was made for the left, they still call it vague and the right still calls it too specific. Therefore, no change is made to the tax reformer's argument.

Was stuck between B and D, but ended up getting it right, here's how:

1. I remembered how the word "evaluate" is used in LR.

   • "Evaluate the stimulus." This question is asking you to find strengths and weaknesses. Paragraph 2 is completely neutral.

2. I did not know what tenets meant and was nervous it could potentially mean supporters of legal positivism.

   • What clued me in that tenets did not mean supporters was the word "basic." It would be pretty weird is the LSAT was calling people basic lol

Music critic changes the definition of "religious" to make "divinely inspired" sufficient. The other group was only referring to religious texts, which may be religious but require some other necessary stuff we do not know about.

If you negate answer (C) you get something along the lines of, "not all that improved automatic writing, improved their composition." This statement implies correlation, instead of causation. The conclusion on the other hand suggests that the reason automatic writing improved composition is because it frees up mental resources (casual connection).

While negated answer (C) does not weaken the argument much, it does rule out a potential alternative explanation and therefore, strengthens the conclusion.

O3 breaks and reforms to absorb UV. Cl is a problem because O3 cannot reform.

Answer (E) might help because if the chemical cannot break down it cannot absorb UV, buuuuut we would also need to see if when it breaks down does it prevent O3 from reforming.

I mean if I am a scientist I am not testing to see if the chemical I am proposing is similar to Cl, what I am going to do is test what happens when we expose it to UV and O3. Dumbass question.

Lets say we do compare it to Cl and there are some similarities. We do not know if these similarities are the cause. OR even worse, the results say nope nothing to worry about. We send the chemical into the atmosphere, and it ends up having some other unseen function that destroys O3. I'm titled.

I focused too much on the idea that because courts get involved it made the entire thing illegal under the 14th amendment. The question asks about "attribution" rationale so I zeroed in on an answer that would place the blame on the larger entity. (This was influenced by the fact these restrictive covenant are described as "perfectly legal.")

The entire point of Shelley's "attribution" rationale was that it made it illegal for the private actors, I mean duh!! It was already illegal for the state.

Answer (C): If a newspaper gets involved in op-ed piece they are responsible as wellllll. Newspaper did not write the op-ed piece but they get blamed alongside writer.

Columnist writes --> Newspaper publishes

Private contract --> State enforcement

Answer (A): Only trucking company is responsible. Company --> Company

Answer (E): Company is responsible.

Company --> Company

Answer E: Aerobics class got more aerobics exercise than the weight-lifting group (no shit).

Answer (E) is not saying: Aerobics class got more exercise overall after starting the experiment. OR. Aerobics class spent more time exercising than the weight-lifting group.

If the point of a statement is to negate, even if it uses "some" or "often" you can treat it as a regular conditional. If one thing being bad makes all things of those kind bad, you can write:

A1 --> B therefore, A --> B

Instead of:

A1 --> B therefore, A <-- s --> B

An example could be one consequence of a decision leading to someone getting hurt, making the decision totally unacceptable. Kind of like how certain guns should be treated in America.

Keyboards were designed to limit typewriters speed because EARLY typewriters would jam frequently. Heavily implied that this is a problem characteristic of EARLY typewriters and not modern laptops, hence the talk of replacing QWERTY with something more efficient.

I got this correct through POE

1. Soil from nearby land taken out of production 20 years ago was scattered on native plant species. This soil has beneficial microorganisms.

2. Enriched > not Enriched, but not as good as the nearby land

Conclusion: Fields farmed for many years are overrun with aggressive disease organisms, while, beneficial microorganisms are lacking.

Question: Why out of production (nearby land) > enriched?

Misunderstanding: Enriched soil brought over the aggressive disease organisms.

1. He was confused which one applied

2. He breaks national

3. If you broke local the excuse that he did not know would have worked

Conclusion: Local does not include national, so not following due to ignorance makes sense. National is always applied, so even if you thought you were supposed to be following local, you should still have been following national.

Regardless, this stimulus should of had an additional premise saying that it is not one or the other. I assumed it was either national or local codes applied. I mean why would the defendant even make the argument about switching them up if national is always applied. I guess you have to assume he was not aware.

The question asks what the argument is "most" vulnerable to. The conclusion compares tendency to laugh and actually laughing at the comic video, but there is no support that these two things are at all different. The conclusion falls apart.

If you conclude that because: A--> B --> C, there is a casual mechanism between A --> C, the relationship between A & B or B & C must be true.

I understood this was the flaw, but mistakenly chose answer (C). Answer (C) is incorrect because who knows if these adults are the researchers or if these adults are even incorrect.

Model to understand does not mean Ellison actually was influenced by these themes. Even less supported, that Ellison incorporated any of these themes into the Invisible Man.

Ended up incorrectly ruling answer (B) out and was left with answer (D).

Assumed answer (D) was referring to the African American novelistic style, which the passage states his contributions to development were lessened, not that it was developed or that he took ideas from it. Instead answer (D) is talking about the "many European writers" from the beginning of the passage.

Almost fell for answer (D).

The stimulus directly rules out answer (D) by stating"the epistemological beliefs of the medieval epistemologists," would just involve checking off if a medieval epistemologist believed a certain idea. There is no reference to deciding if these beliefs were correct, or believed by all, just if at least one believed it.

We can make no conclusion on whether a medieval epistemologist held a belief if we have no idea who was a medieval epistemologist (answer (E)).

Answer (A) is incorrect because the construction of the road is only necessary to this one way of strengthening Sierra's economy. There may be other ways that do not involve constructing this road.

Read the sentence wrong several times.

"A CLS scholar might object...." what are they objecting to?

The game analogy.

Their objection is: That legal cases are unlike games.

What the sentence is not saying: They are objecting to games being unlike legal cases, and agreeing to the analogy.

Very confusing, but the second part of the sentence, "in that one cannot merely apply the rules without appealing to...." helps.

@CarolineN The issue with (B) is I believe "the cause of which is unknown." Disease Z could also be caused by the size of the interstitial nucleus in the hypothalamus. Sort of like people who are exposed to radiation getting multiple forms of cancer, you would not say one form of cancer caused the other. Another issue is "many male cats," many could literally mean anything. If 5 people in a medium-sized town contacted a rare type of parasite, that could be also be many.

Real question, answer (E) states disease X is a subtype of disease Y, whats to say the reason X is a subtype and not idk the same disease is that it involves the size of interstitial nucleus in the hypothalamus and not some other part of the brain.

I feel like the assumption that disease X must have the same cause as disease Y because its a subtype is unreasonable.

T1D and T2D have completely different causes.

I think I see why now.

Interstitial nucleus is in the hypothalamus. A subtype may differ between the parts of the hypothalamus, but a subtype differing between different larger parts of the brain is a bit weaker. Although, there could be a defining characteristic of the interstitial nucleus that one of the parts of the frontal cortex shares.

Answer (D) is correct because at no point in the passage does the author suggest degree of ownership claimed by resource-providers institutions will not vary from case to case. While even with the explanations from the comments and JY, I still do not understand how in any way the passage suggests ownership may vary from case the case. 100% the passage does NOT suggest is will not vary. This is enough to select answer (D).

Answer (C) is suggested. According to the author a maximalist institution allows ownership that does not arise in the course of employment or from use of resources. We know maximalist functions nearly identically to a supramaximalist institution which claims ownership of all faculty inventions using university resources.

If you take "outside the institution" as outside the course of employment, and if you remember that supramaximalist and maximalist cover the same stuff, it must be the faculty that would lose ownership in a supramaximalist institution because they used institution resources, would not get ownership in a maximalist institution because they are not employed.

Take notice that the sufficient conditions for ownership at a maximalist institution includes [or]. Either not employed or no resources used is sufficient to have ownership.