I feel as though b introduces the variable that we really need to succeed in this question: the presence of another cause. Instead, it seems that the question wants us to find something else. God this one is so stupid.

The complaints occurred after an increase in the patients use of the telephone? I think that directly supports what the article is saying about the situation being cause by the telephone. We can infer that an increased use of the telephone makes people more prone to experiencing the side effects prescribed by the dermatologist.

telephones are used by most people in the industrial world? I think it would be correct because the population of the dermatologists patients most likely make up some part of the population in general, and the evidence is rather neutral compared to the argument itself.

Most patients had occupations that required them to use their telephones extensively? This would give us the conclusion the dermatologist is prescribing their patients.

Contact between other devices and the patients' faces occurred equally on both sides of their faces? This seems like the most probable answer choice, given this scenario would likely weaken the dermatologist's conclusion the telephones themselves caused the rash. Instead, the LSAT hates us and thinks this is incorrect. If someone told me I was wrong face to face I would genuinely call them a fascist for their response. Genuinely, its quite ridiculous to consider this a wrong answer choice in this set of circumstances.

many telephones are now manufactured using a kind of plastic to which some people are mildly allergic. We have to make an assumption here, that the manufactured plastic is directly impacting the people who could come into contact with it. Whether or not this is the case, it increases the likelihood that the manufactured plastic played a role in the rash on peoples' faces, which is a common allergic reaction for most people.

When my children grow up, I will teach them to become lawyers, but I will teach them to find people who think there can only be one absolute answer in these scenarios and to prove them wrong.

I think the answer choice C is correct because of the normality or generalization it is trying to make about the insertion of the virus; Perhaps the prevalence of the virus in both birds is significant of the fact that both are related going back centuries or thousands of years.

But we can't say for sure that the answer choice correctly relies on an assumption about animals in general, because this would apply to the birds as well, given that they are animals. The lack of distinction is troubling and should be re-worded in this problem to prevent the confusion of most people, because it allows people to become confused over the terminology present in this stimulus, which should be prevented and not advocated for as a principle future lawyers should deal with or make decisions based upon.

Its the essential difference between trying a situation as a subjective interpretation versus an objective interpretation. Here, we are taking a subjective situation and actively attributing an objective statement to it based on an inference of a quality these two birds possess. Would this answer choice indicate that other birds with the same location of insertion for the virus be related to the birds mentioned in the stimulus? Could there have been a bird species that received the hepadnavirus concurrent with the birds in the stimulus? These questions are essential to figuring out the truth about these assertions, yet the LSAT consequentially overlooks them time and time again. To prepare future lawyers, we cannot rid ourselves of individuals who think of issues with these arguments that are relevant, but outside of the realm of multiple-choice answer choices.

yeah this is silly; Concluding that they should give special privileges to one certain demographic without prescribing any exclusivity to other demographics isn't relevant to the stimulus that doesn't present the exclusivity.

I made a weird example to gauge this AC if anyone would like to read:

say a group of people are very likely to see a movie about cars. They all have large interests in cars. but is it the case that this movie was curated to them by the people who made this movie in order for the car people to watch it? It is equally likely that these people will watch this movie because they either like it, or the people who made it made it for that group of people. In order to conclude that the population of people who just like cars are going to see the movie just because they like cars and not necessarily because it was curated for them by the company, we would have to conclude that other people would go see this movie besides the car people, thereby allowing us to conclude that it is more likely the car people are seeing the movie because they like cars and not because the movie creators curated it for them, the other people could see the movie regardless of the curation, making the likelihood that this was the case to be less so. Perhaps the company did make the movie especially for them, but we don't know that this is the case, perhaps they could have and it could be a revolving factor, but by stating that other people would see this movie as well, we can conclude safely that the movie could have attracted many audiences besides the car people, which means that the curation may not have been specifically for the car people population.

Just deny the conclusion and you're chilling with flaw questions lol.

you could totally argue that C is correct on grounds that the analogy is warranted specific to the conclusion. But I still got this right because A does in fact support this as a general principle with means of an example, thereby allowing us to conclude the premises that there is in fact some example being used to ascribe some given situation in which the principle is taking place.

subset --> superset

sufficient --> necessary

p-->C

discs --> serious back pain

they're trying to deny our sufficient condition by saying people who experience slipped discs are not going to experience back pain because of the slipped discs.

just play around with the subsidiary conclusions on these question types lol

we can use key words for the answer choices to find out what the stimulus is trying to tell us:

"...no students with learning disabilities have yet enrolled in the school."

this is trying to tell us that it is A: a necessary condition. But how do we know for sure? How is it possible to conclude this when in the beginning of that sentence the author states "Although the charter of Westside School states that the student body must include some students with special educational needs..."? We must use the word "yet" featured in the second half of the sentence to conclude B: The second half of the sentence indicates the P-->C relationship between the sufficient and necessary conditions in the sentence; furthermore, it indicates that this is the closest evidence to the conclusion, as it directly pertains to the conclusion, unlike the former half of the sentence, thereby giving us the conclusive statement:

student with educational needs ---> learning disabilities

if I can be quite honest, I solved this problem by using the first statement in the stimulus (separated by a semicolon) as the premises, and the "but" statement after the "yet" statement as the conclusion for the argument, given that the middle "but" statement means a refutation of some claim made in a prior sentence.

Furthermore, the conclusion referred to in the analysis doesn't really help us with identifying the this problem, at least to my knowledge, by telling us the state of comedy is hardly surprising; all this does is refer back to the "but" statement and the first statement in the passage, which is separated by the semicolon. The last sentence would be fine as our conclusion if the correct answer choice were to describe some issue that is relevant to some hardly surprising fact in comedy; Moreover, it would be in the set up of P-->C, where the conclusion sentence would show either something regarding the popularity of the comedian, or the hardly surprising aspect of this comedy style (I say either because i haven't evaluated it into lawgic lol and I won't given the semantic jumps it seems to entail as an answer choice), but the correct answer choice does neither of the things mentioned in that conclusion, so it can't be the conclusion the lsat wants us to derive! right?

I feel like it would make way more sense to say that each sentence in this passage is a conclusive statement, given the usage of the keywords, and the only way to evaluate it is to use the relationships that the sentences have towards one another to evaluate the stimulus.

@dannyurbina18387 honestly, Im still struggling with this too. Instead of focusing on translating into lawgic, I've just been getting into the habit of connecting conclusions to premises on these question types, and it's been working faster for me as a result!

This answer choice implies that there is another necessary condition inside of the second to last sentence that allows us to come to the conclusion that the proposal will either be approved or not approved. Its understandable that the conditional sequence is what drags this question into confusion, but I dont like it one bit:

approved (sufficient condition) --> director supports proposals (necessary condition)

the conclusion proceeds by adding in a "must be" part to its conclusion. They know what they are doing here and it ticks me off so much:

director support proposal (sufficient) --> clean labs out (necessary)

"affirming the necessary" as it is called. I should have known this better, but this question was so confusing holy mackerel.

one thing I notice about these question types (the disagreement ones) is that the second person usually references a premise in the first person's reasoning, as the main argument of their contention. This is key for this question type, because they'll usually leave the answer choice as one that is stating the 2nd person's response pertaining to the premises of the 1st person's argument!

Or I could be wrong. Let me know if anyone else sees this theme, and stay safe out there!

Quick hack for this question guys (and i use this for a lot of other question types that I think involve conditional logic); Use the Premises --> Conclusion arrow type when creating your answer choice! JY uses it all the time in his videos for conditional logic, and even on some that don't require it, but it helps imensely when these questions are formulated in a way that messes you up.

For example, on my first pass of this question, I inferred that the first sentence was the conclusion, so I selected A and moved on. Turns out, that was wrong! So I came back on the redo section and chose B. Why? Well, it follows that principle I'm talking about! If you link up the premises, which is the middle sentence in the paragraph (the last sentence isn't linked to the first in any of the answer choices!!), then you get B as your answer!

Quick note here though, D is quite promising, but it fails in the order of operations by going Conclusion --> premises! They almost got me with the wording, and in case they are getting you too with it, "must" is in the latter half of the answer choice! Those darn test writers almost got me, but I hope they didn't get you!

Remember that the test writers are really evil! you just have to show 'em that DAWG in you so they lose their merit in writing what they perceive to be "hard" questions!

good luck! Y'all at 7Sage are amazing.

Nah this should have been C; C is literally the argument's conclusion. Furthermore, you could separate that conclusion from its evidence and the conclusion would still make sense, given that the scenario the Conservationist is envisioning requires the passage of time for the sanctuary to continue, but as we see with the Pilot, this situation of collisions only becomes more dangerous as time moves forward.

To state that this is a "general principle" regarding all dangerous situations is so erroneous when it is clear that the counter is on the subject of a specific series of phenomena, which have already occurred multiple times and will continue for an unspecified amount of times, even when one such collision will result in passenger injuries. The counter needs to enunciate the conclusion that the author comes to, or it unjustly identifies the premises as being the counter.

On the Topic of A, we cannot conclude that the facts are misleading without recognizing the conclusion the author seeks to make for this argument. The "counter," in this case, is wrong, given that it fails to address the actual argument of the Pilot, which is indicated by the word "so," thereby making A evermore neglectful of the actual position of the pilot.

But God forbid I interpret dangerous situations in the context of the problem.

The sufficient conditions in the answer choice do not line up to the statement originally expressed in the passage. We cannot conclude that if a compromise is reached, then the political leader's side will benefit. we only know that if a compromise is not reached, then the political leader's side will benefit; The contrapositive of which is if the political leader's side will not benefit, then a compromise is reached. and that their side will benefit from showing a desire to compromise with the opposition, which doesn't necessarily mean they will benefit from the outcome of compromising.

(premise 1)

FP --> PC

false (concl.), because (premise 2)

FP --> PF

so PF and PC can't work together given that they both contain the correct sufficient conditions, yet the conclusion contrasts the necessaries with one another.

so the correct assumption should be:

-------------

PC --> /PF

this was a contradictory correct answer; Like why does it enunciate having all of the cattle wear the device, but makes the answer choice pertain to a specific assumption that the cows will follow leaders regardless of this situation and that they wont be deterred primarily by the device instead. Odd that the solution doesn't line up to the evidence. Thought it was supposed to do that.

serious students -most-> happy

serious students -most-> grad school --> overworked

---------------

happy -some-> grad school --> overworked

valid conclusion

real wages --> productivity

Contrapositive of evidence +conclusion: real wages --> tech

assumption: productivity --> tech

contrapositive: /tech --> /productivity

Are there any better ways to remember the Mismatched concepts assumption rule regarding entailment of premises and support, otherwise known in this case as sufficient and necessary conditions?

@jgoogs Jgoogs. Bro. I thought I was the only one who recognized the inconsistent assumptions that tend to get made on these correct answer choices. It's a relief to know that I'm not alone in dealing with the hypocrisy of these questions highkey.

Unfortunately, the answer choice that I selected for this was B initially, given that it has such strong relation to the topic and its issue; But, I was wrong in the sense that the conclusion is a "tends to" conclusion, which doesn't get explained anywhere to my knowledge, but this distinction in wording is extremely important for the types of answer choices that create an absolute conclusion rather than a strong conclusion, yknow?

D is correct because it enunciates the relationship between napping and insomnia as a "possibility" rather than being fully conclusive over the relationship between the concepts, which is how we see it in the stimulus!

Again, confusing, I know. A frequent objection for this outlook might provide that the term "possibility" doesn't line up to the phrase "tends to", but we're thinking in the hypothetical, while also considering how "possibility" and "tending to" are similar on the spectrum of support (think of them almost lining up right above one another on a number line, if it helps). It's implicit, and I'd argue one of the most important factors to keep in mind on these assumption question types.

Furthermore, think of Socrates in Plato's Republic; If we said "all instances", but Socrates prompted originally by enunciating the relationship to be "sometimes yes, sometimes no", which isn't a direct quote, but is similar to his response in a discussion with Cephalus at the beginning of the book, and we agreed to his original distinction prior to making our own, it would make sense for Socrates to ridicule us for making an assumption about the consistency of an event of which we agreed only "sometimes yes, sometimes no" takes place.

Sorry for the ramble here, I just thought this was important!

well just because we know one thing about one group doesn't mean we can conclude another thing about another group.

Fudgepops. E is wrong.

Socrates would have loved the LSAT.

@Stas1973 Doesn't selecting this answer choice require making an assumption about the length of time that the second hypothesis supposes, given it doesn't say any time frame?

5/5 on the first try THIS IS MY FIRST TIME GETTING 5/5 EVER

@WilliamStimpson Wait with the reasoning supplied in your last paragraph wouldn't D be incorrect alongside A?

The stimulus tells us about how much paper product damages the environment, but not necessarily about how the production of any paper product is more harmful to the environment than the equal weight or volume of any plastic product. We simply don't get that comparison, nor that definition of equal weight between the two.

We only know that plastic contributes a smaller proportion than paper, and that the damage to the environment by a given weight or volume of trash in general contributes roughly the same whether it be plastic or paper in the trash. We just can't conclude that paper production is more harmful to the environment, especially when the product has no intrinsic outcome placed within its context and its circumstances of not yet being trash.