i love finding solidarity in the comments

y'all nasty for that

I think the biconditional version of "only if" would be "if and only if." The phrase "only if" would just therefore indicate a necessary condition.

who's*

the fellow 37 likes to this gives me peace of mind

I also really struggled with this and got it wrong.

My mistake was not understanding that the average price paid for new cars would be attributed to sales made not just by individuals but also by groups like corporations, businesses, etc. Thus, if those prices rise from purchases other than by individuals (i.e., corps, businesses, etc.), the conclusion that individuals are paying more is weakened.

E gets at this idea by indicating that fewer individuals are buying new cars and that more non-individuals are contributing to this increase in the average price paid for new cars.

That was my exact issue with this question. They could have been minted but not circulated beforehand. This could be potentially true and fails to counter the logic of the argument then.

If answer D had not said "the FIRST human ancestors..." would it have been a valid form of weakening?

If they had the same level of dexterity, both standing and not, then the argument's reasoning would fall apart and thus weaken the argument?

I am confused between B and D.

The conclusion in the arguemnt (1st sentance) talks about future crimes and would make sense for D in that it would reduce future crimes by therapists' persuasion.

In the following sentence or the premise, it talks about unreported crimes and crimes priorly committed. It would then make more sense to pick B in that it would weaken the idea that some "dangerous clients [are] out of prison" because at least some would be already in prison and safer for victims.

I think the problem with D is that it skips over where the money is coming from, which was the main issue. The money would need to come from taxpayers or workers, and no matter where it goes, it would ultimately not create the net increase in economy and further evinces the conclusion of the party spokesperson.

So for B, if it had said there had been

"medication that controls blood pressure that affects your quick to anger temperament,"

would that have been a correct weakening answer?

Just checking to make sure I understood E:

We can never weaken an argument by just directly contradicting the conclusion?

Is it safe to assume when there is the word some in a strengthen/weaken, 99% of the times it is too ambiguous of evidence to support/discredit the arguments?

That's precisely the reason I choose B, too.

If there are fewer "recent university graduates," then there is a decrease in the youngest possible demographic applying to the program. If the average age would increase even if just by 0.1, it still would point to fewer "recent university graduates."

So would it be safe to assume that a question stem like this infers you to look for a strengthening element that completes the partial argument?

I know right

Hang in there, harry

JK, I guess rewatching the video, you don't need to know whether or not that person who had a relative with perfect pitch had perfect pitch. What mattered was if you were able to eliminate an alternative hypothesis as to why they would have developed a perfect pitch from somewhere else and still corroborate the evidence.

I understood the correct answer choice and was able to eliminate it.

However,

"People who have relatives with perfect pitch" does not imply anything about that person themselves having perfect pitch. It is just stating a trait of peoples' relatives and made me very confused. If it had said "People with perfect pitch who have relatives with perfect pitch, " That would have made complete logical sense, but without it, I am lost as to how one assumes that huge assumption.

I think the issue comes in making the inference in the relationship between the two groups.

Say X--> Y and X --> Z

D is saying Y → Z

and not X → Y and Z as X is not mentioned in the answer choice. X → Y and Z is valid but just not being stated as the relationship in this specific wording (or at least that is what I took from it).

Y ←s→Z would be a better explanation of their relationship and thus invalidates "D"

How do you speed up lawgic notation time? I was able to get it right, but it took double the target time. I am finding many other lawgic notation questions falling behind as well.

That logic makes sense, but then that's where it matters that both must agree. Though Kim may agree in limiting the population, changes in diet, and/or biotech being beneficial. Hampton would most agree with Biotech since they explicitly state so. Thus B, I guess, makes the most sense.

#feedback

I mean this in the nicest way possible, but the other guy who explains the answers (Kevin) gives much better explanations of these LSAT questions. I appreciate this person explaining the answers and taking the time to do so, but 9/10 times, this guy skips over answers with sometimes no reasoning or doesn't provide any satisfactory reasoning for wrong answers. 29% of people missed D, and he spends 5 seconds quickly breezing by it. It can be slightly frustrating, but again, I appreciate him for even taking the time to help explain. I just wish it was Kevin.

I am having a hard time understanding the jump from being susceptible to change to being undermined. I understand the conditional logic and its contrapositive justification, but I find it a big assumption to assume that when something is undermined, it changes. They seem too disparate to justify?

this