@LSATLSAT-3 It asks us to find an assumption that the conclusion depends on, so it's necessary assumption! SA would be something like "which one of the following allows the conclusion to be properly drawn".

@dodgeharris The stimulus tells us that there only a few companies that have voluntarily established the committee. It would be pretty implausible for this number to include all medium and large businesses in the US. However, as long as you can use elimination to get to the correct answer choice you're on the right track!

@WilRothman I would add "without some qualification" into the "ideal" answer choice:

Teaching that a political assassination alone caused WW1 is bound to mislead.

@JZ123 Here is the relevant lesson! It's from the "Arguments" portion of the Foundations lessons. https://7sage.com/lessons/foundations/arguments/for-since-because

@TeklaCo Yes, that is a flaw that the argument commits! The written explanation highlights this in the "identify and describe flaw" section. However, there aren't any answer choices that correctly reflect this flaw. AC D points out a whole to part flaw, which is not what we're looking for.

@Hanifa Hey there! Yep, the alternate version of D would be valid. The jump in the actual version is between can participate and does participate, so removing that jump and using "can" in both instances would fix the flaw.

@Carrete Hey there! "The varying textures of applied paint" implies that applied paint will have varying textures. This means that having different textures is unavoidable with paint. But we have no reason to believe that this is the case with paper. It could be true that using different textures of paper could interfere with the colour, but there's no reason to believe that they have to use different textures. Unlike paint, the argument doesn't claim that paper inherently has varied textures.

@Isabella! Hey there! The conclusion is that reducing class sizes would not improve overall student achievement. AC D claims that hiring more teachers wouldn't improve the achievement of any students. Negated, it would become "hiring more teachers would improve the achievement of some students". Even if this negation is true, it doesn't ruin the conclusion. Some students' achievement can be improved but the overall achievement of the school could stay the same or get worse. So AC D ends up being too strong/extreme to be necessary.

@AidenMagley Hey there! I don't think this is an issue of a "specific definition", although it does feel like it. It's more of a connection between concepts. If your scenario happened, and humans with the virus travelled back to North America but didn't spread the virus, then this would be a completely different situation than the 1990s spread of the virus in North America. Answer choice E makes sense in the context of connecting the information about how the virus spreads with the fact that it spread to North America in the 1990s. So it's not necessarily a different definition of "carried", but it's applying "carried" to that part of the stimulus.

@Uli For Weakening questions, we're just trying to make the conclusion less likely, so we don't need to disprove it entirely! The bar of strength for Weakening questions is lower than a question type like Sufficient Assumption. "Usually" is okay here because it tells us an effect that happens most of the time, which makes it less likely that taxes themselves would produce the reduction in smoking. It doesn't fully disprove the mayor's argument -- there are still situations where the conclusion could stand. But we're just looking for the AC that weakens the conclusion more than the others.

@Isabella! Hey there! Mapping out E would give us this:

/satisfies curiosity and /provide accurate info --> /good journalism

We could also take the contrapositive:

good journalism --> satisfies curiosity or provide accurate info

Hope this helps!

@Isabella! That is an assumption that the argument makes, which is why D is the correct answer! The stimulus says that the tree-planting initiatives are ineffective, despite the fact that vegetation can trap CO2. They say this is because native grasses are better. But why would it be one or the other? Why would planting trees have any relationship to native grasses? As D points out, they're assuming that people would have to choose between native grasses or trees, and since trees are the worse choice, the initiatives are ineffective. If answer choice D was negated and the trees were being planted in areas that would be have no vegetation otherwise, then the conclusion would fall apart, because we know that vegetation as a whole is good for slowing warming.

Hope this helps!

@Bushra.A You're on the right track, but there's an additional piece of information! We know that they failed to domesticate tigers, zebras, etc., because those animals are wild animals today. They're basically telling us that the ancient humans tried to domesticate the wild animals we have today, but those animals are still wild, so they failed.

Hey there! A common problem with dense technical passages (a lot of science and humanities ones) is that students try to focus too much on the details instead of the big picture. When presented with an experiment/study/historical event/historical figure etc., try to think about why they are relevant and why the author is bringing them up, even if you don't fully understand all of the nitty gritty details.

Ultimately, more exposure to these passage types will help you figure them out. I recommend starting on a difficulty level that feels comfortable for you, and trying to do the passage at a comfortable pace. Once you reach your desired accuracy level, gradually increase the difficulty level/pace. If you've been studying for a while and feel really frustrated and fatigued by RC, take a break by drilling different passage types or switching to LR (or taking a full break if you need it)! If you're fatigued, taking some time away could help the passages "click" better.

The Prometric test centers typically have computer terminals with a monitor and mouse. Here is the relevant info from LSAC:

"At the Prometric test center, you will be assigned a test station, which will include a computer terminal, noise-canceling headphones, and all the materials you will need for your test." https://www.lsac.org/lsat/taking-lsat

@junda After reading your comment, I did the question without mapping and here is my thought process:

First, I identified the premises and the conclusion. Then, since this is a sufficient assumption question, I tried to find the "new concept" in the conclusion that wasn't mentioned in the premises. This is the concept of "freely performed". The premises never discuss sufficient/necessary conditions for what makes an action freely performed. My prediction was that we need an answer choice that connects "freely performed" with the premise about being justified to praise/blame someone.

I eliminated answer choices A, B, and D because they did not mention "freely performed". Between answer choices C and E, I eliminated E since it was just a sufficiency-necessity flipped version of the conclusion. The conclusion discusses situations where we do know a lot about an action, but answer choice E is negating that condition. It is introducing a situation that we don't know anything about. It also doesn't connect to the "justified to praise/blame" concept in the premises. This leaves us with AC C. To check, I plugged the answer choice into the stimulus and confirmed that it makes the conclusion follow logically.

Hope this was helpful! Keep in mind that this was my thought process, and your thought process could have been different and still been correct. In a real testing situation, I would still recommend mapping this out, since there are some clear conditional indicators and difficult SA questions usually benefit from diagramming.

@maxwellmoose45 Let's imagine that all cats contain the 3 proteins A, B, and C. Then someone who is allergic to protein A would be allergic to all cats. Another person could be allergic to protein B, (since the allergy-producing protein varies per person), but they would still be allergic to every cat. However, the stimulus tells us that it is common for one cat to cause an allergic reaction in some people but not others. So in real life, there are people who are allergic to one type of cat, but not allergic to another type. If all cats were identical in their proteins, this wouldn't be possible.

@HaleyJ We don't need to assume that those in the first group will interact with the other group, because it is a hypothetical scenario. There is a bit of a "hidden" hypothetical that is inferred -- if they did interact with those in the latter group, then they would sometimes treat them in ways they don't like. We can make this inference because the whole situation is framed in the hypothetical scenario presented in the stimulus.

Your first solution is also correct! If we consider the above hypothetical inference as an assumption, then it would still be smaller than the assumption required by A. This is because the assumption in B is at least somewhat alluded to in the stimulus, while the one in A has no support at all -- we have 0 information about when they would be willing to speak.

Student Question: I am having trouble deciding the difference between AC A. and AC E. and why AC A. is incorrect. Does AC A. not trigger the principle because it doesn’t really mention an example of a “deeply engrained” association?

Tutor Response: Answer choice A does not violate the principle. It is aligned with it, because the manufacturers are sticking to the learned patterns of behaviour. We would need an answer choice where manufacturers are going against something that is a learned pattern. 

We are told that people who have never learned to type find the keyboard arrangement confusing, but that’s not relevant, because they don’t have any typing-related patterns of behaviour to begin with. We can assume that those who have learned how to type are comfortable with the current arrangement (because it has stayed the same for so long). Because of this, answer choice A would actually align with the principle instead of violating it. 

@Criener A counterexample in this case would be an example of a work that is placed within a genre based on it's formal elements rather than the way it is read. That counterexample is not present in Passage A. Borges' views are aligned with the conclusion in the last paragraph, and the author doesn't bring up any works that could function as a counterexample.

@SMRegalado "Makes a conclusion about all of the business clients" means that the conclusion is taking into account the whole set, not necessarily that the conclusion is targeting 100% of clients. The premise is about a subset of clients: the ones who made a profit. Out of this subset, 90% increased their profit tenfold. The conclusion is about the whole set of clients: the agent claims that out of the whole set, 90% increased their profits tenfold.

Hey there! Full sections are way harder than smaller drills. They require better pacing skills, more stamina, and the ability to remember techniques for several question types, without knowing which one is which. So it's totally normal to find them harder than the drills within the curriculum!

You can try breaking up the section in half by practicing the first 15 questions and the last 10 questions separately. This should let you practice timing and stamina without being as overwhelming as a full section. Track how long it takes you to do each half at a comfortable pace, then slowly try to get the first 15 questions in 15 minutes and the last 10 questions in 20 minutes. This will take a while to get the hang of, but ultimately it gives you a good sense of pacing for a full 35-minute section!

Hope this helps, and happy studying!

@shay_lsat Hey! I don't think admissions committees would care or hold that against you. They are going to evaluate the scores that they see on file, and they don't know how long you studied for. If you have a 160 as your first test and a higher score as your second one they will just see that you improved. A 160 is not a "bad" score by any means. Also, as far as I know, cancelling a test will also show up on your file (so they will be able to see that you cancelled, but they won't know your score). Because of this, as Phoebe mentioned, there aren't many strong incentives to cancel your first score.

@AlexC235 The closer to your target score the better! If you're aiming for a 162, you'd want to have at least hit 160. But you're already pretty close to your goal, so it's up to you! Keep in mind that this is just my opinion and nobody knows your journey and capabilities as well as you.

@siennaisacolor A play about ancient Greece would not itself be "ancient Greek". By referring to it as "Greek", they are saying that it originates from Greece, not that it is about Greece. While a "Civil War play" could be about the Civil War, a "Victorian era American play" would have to be a play from that era and that country.