I got this wrong by selecting AC A. I understand why AC B is correct, and upon review, a better choice than A, but I think there may be a case for both A and B being correct. The statement is "Objectivism rests on evidence that conflicts with the data of introspection," not "Objectivism rests solely on evidence that conflicts with the data of introspection." Does "rests" imply "rests solely"?

The second paragraph's line "philosophers loyal to subjectivity are not persuaded by appeals to science when such appeals conflict with the data gathered by introspection" implies there are times when they conflict (although not always). The subjectivists defer to subjective experience during these times, indicating that they think the objective approach relies on faulty data during these times. In other words, "Objectivism [in some instances] rests on evidence that conflicts with the data of introspection" therefore making it "faulty" (not always wrong, but vulnerable to making mistakes)

@Saint Tbh this comment is a bit confusing, but I think I get the basics of your concern.

"Could be true" is not a valid conclusion. It also could be false. On the LSAT LR sections, correct answers will be certainly correct, some wrong answers will be certainly wrong, and some wrong answers will be "could be wrong or could be correct"

Simple examples for anyone struggling:

1. Conditional:

Basketball players are athletes

Tom plays basketball

---

Tom is an athlete

2. Contrapositive:

Basketball players are athletes

Tom is not an athlete

---

Tom does not play basketball

3. Conditional Chaining:

Kittens are cats. Cats are cute

---

Kittens are cute

4. Some before all:

Some cats are pets. (All) Pets are kind

---

Some cats are kind

5. Most before all:

Most cats are pets. (All) Pets are kind

---

Most cats are kind

6. Two Mosts:

Most cats are pets. Most cats are kind.

---

Some pets are kind

A source of confusion for me is how the term "on very cold days" is interpreted in question 5.

Could the sentence be rephrased

(A) "On very cold days, at least 59 percent of households maintained a lower indoor temperature than they had been accustomed to maintain"?

Or

(B) must the "on very cold days" be read only as part "accustomed to maintain on very cold days"

This would change the meaning of the sentence. If we interpreted it as A, then it would mean that the comparison looks like this:

1. very cold days vs accustomed to (assumption: on not very cold days)

2. indoor temperature (which is lower?)

3. winner: very cold days

i.e. The indoor temperature on very cold days is lower (for 59% of households) than the indoor temperature they are accustomed to (assumed, on not very cold days)

If we interpret it as B, then the comparison goes like:

1. Accustomed to (descriptive: on very cold days) vs. Now

2. indoor temperature (which is lower?)

3. winner: Now

i.e. The indoor temperature is lower Now (for 59% of households) than they are Accustomed to on very cold days

My problem is that this grammar leaves room for error in how we understand "on very cold days". Is it a descriptor, which narrows our understanding of "accustomed to" to mean only "what they are accustomed to only on very cold days (but not what they are accustomed to on days that are not very cold)" or does it modify the entirety of the sentence and thus make the comparison very cold days vs what households were accustomed to (on not very cold days)?

Both my interpretation (A) and the interpretation in the video (B) require us to make an assumption. (A) makes the assumption that "accustomed to" implies "on not very cold days." (B) makes the assumption that we are comparing "accustomed to on very cold days" to "now." The assumption in (B) seems to me like a greater leap than the assumption in (A), making (A) a more reasonable way to read it.

Am I misunderstanding a grammar rule that would eliminate the possibility to interpret the sentence as (A)? Would there have to be a comma after "maintain" in order to read it this way?

@Kate Levinson The fast food boom in the premise supports the "and changes in dietary habits" part of the conclusion. Like he said, it's not the most persuasive argument, but it is an argument because the premise does make (at least half of) the conclusion more likely to be true

@bcn It would change the structure because it would no longer be "the kid took a cookie without permission" + "he knows that doing something without permission is wrong" = "he knows he did something wrong", it would be "he knows he did something wrong" + "he took a cookie without permission" = "he knows that doing something without permission is wrong". Both constitute arguments (though I would argue the first argument is stronger than the second, because in the second he could know that he had done something else wrong. That premise still supports but does not prove, while the premises in the first argument prove the conclusion)

@Yean All we know from the second sentence is that linguists have conducted comparative analyses of traditional languages from various regions and eras. It does not state that these studies have shown any support for the first sentence, as there is no statement on the results of those analyses

@Max Thompson So would the causal mechanism be the last two sentences? Like, (paraphrasing) "Driving position affects both comfort and visibility AND here is how comfort and visibility impact driving safety (i.e. through fatigue and awareness)" rather than simply "driving position affects both comfort and visibility" which is just a premise with no causal mechanism laid out

@LaurenAoki Not a tutor, but my understanding is that the conclusion would be "The position of a car driver's seat probably has a significant impact on driving safety" (reword of first two sentences) - and the claims that the driving position affects A) comfort and B) clear vision are premises offered to support the conclusion.

The position of a car's driver's seat probably has a significant impact on driving safety BECAUSE the position impacts comfort and vision

I think you may be getting tripped up by meshing the premise and conclusion all together as the conclusion, but the conclusion does not support itself, it is a statement that is supported by premises