I hate diagramming with some and most. I tried to do it here but it took me 4 minutes and I was still confused. They do it in the explanation but even that I can't read.

Instead I drew VENN DIAGRAMS. I had to draw two separate scenarios

1) Literature, Physics, Art

2) Rhetoric, Physics Art

The two venn diagrams end up looking the same

Literature separate, then Physics & Art with some overlap

Rhetoric separate, then Physics & Art with some overlap

Of course, we don't know if Literature & art overlap or if rhetoric & art overlap, but it ends up not mattering because as soon as we go to the answers, we know A is correct.

Some students who take art but not literature.

Some students who take art take Physics. Physics and literature cannot be taken together. Therefore those students who take art & physics cannot take literature.

I tried to diagram it using > and < but still kept getting confused. Then I diagrammed it top to bottom and it clicked right away. Note that the horizontal lines are just to compare how everything sits compared to M, it doesn't mean, for example, that all T and most S are the same age. It just means that both are above M

T ------ Most S

M ------ M

D ------ Some S

or

T ------ Most S

M ------ M ------ Some S

D

A) Some D on same level as T

Must be False - all T are above D

B) Some D on same level or above some S

Could be true but doesn't have to be. In the first diagram, we know both D and Some S are below M, but we don't know the relationship between D and S - who is higher or lower. In the second "diagram", all S are above D.

C) Some S below some D

Could be true - same reason as B

D) Some T below some S

Could be true - we know Most S and all T are above M, but we don't know how these two relate to each other

E) Some S below T

Must be true. Some S are below M, and all M are below all T.

If I buy this and like my writer, can I book more or set up something with that writer later? or is it all randomized forever? What if I want it to be an ongoing or multiple sessions with the same person can I request them?

a lot of people disliked B because they felt that "vindicate" is too strong of a word. that was my initial reaction as well. we may use vindicate colloquially as being much more emotionally charged.

but vindicate is not necessarily always used that way

it has two related meanings:

1) clearing someone of blame

2) show or prove someone/thing to be right, reasonable, or justified

the second definition is what fits here. Steele is attempting to show that Lamarck's theory is right, reasonable, and justified

so B is correct

D is a tricky trap answer.

1) If the "theory" is Lamarck's (which is a general theory - think of the giraffe necks), then yes it has been rejected by most modern biologists ("Most modern biologists are adamant that nothing of the sort occurs, ever")

But the author doesn't evaluate the merits of Lamarck's theory, she evaluates the merits of Steele's.

2) some say the "theory" referred to in the answer choice is Steele's (and therefore the rest of the answer could apply) - but STEELE DOESN'T HAVE A THEORY. He has evidence and hypotheses. Theory and hypothesis are not interchangeable in science the way they are in common language.

@Bev7 it says modern not marine!

@tar

But among people who smoke, that is a negative correlation.

Smokers with caffeine: 99% develop heart disease

Smokers without caffeine: 100% develop heart disease.

So caffeine REDUCES chance of getting heart disease (among smokers) because 100 went to 99. That's NEGATIVE correlation.

You are confusing correlations and percentages.

The size of the percentage does not tell you whether the two things are positively correlated or negatively correlated. So 99% and 100% of two groups actually doesn't show correlation. Because correlation compares two groups to EACH OTHER, not to how big the percentage is - meaning we are comparing 99% to 100%.

The high percentages are irrelevant. It's the DIRECTION of the comparison that matters, and in this case it was negative: 100% → 99%. It would be negative if it was 2% to 1%, 85% to 30%. It doesn't matter. It only matters that one is less than the other. This means that caffeine is negatively correlated with heart disease among smokers because the caffeine group has LESS heart disease than the non-caffeine group.

Correlation: comparing two groups: less v more

Percentage: one group within another

So A says that caffeine drinks have LESS heart disease than non-caffeine drinkers (among smokers).

The overall correlation we have between caffeine and heart disease as shown in the premise of the stimulus could just be due to caffeine drinkers containing more smokers.

Ok this took me getting wrong on both timed and BR and reading all of the explanations until I watched JY's video and it clicked (though still shaky)

B: "museums should seek to represent all genres of art in their collections"

The first key here is "should seek" (in the answer choice)

It's not that Frederick doesn't have an opinion. He does. His opinion is that the only thing to care about is acquiring the works of recognize masters. Yes, he doesn't explicitly say "only", but there is another important key.

The second key is "limited resources" (in the stimulus)

There are "limited resources" and that we need to acquire "works of recognized masters". And thus if the museum devotes all of their limited resources toward this goal, then maybe they won't hit all genres.

So, if there is a genre in which there are NO recognized masters, then Frederick would say we "should NOT seek" to represent that genre, because museums have limited resources and they need to use those limited resources to acquire the works of recognized masters. And therefore that genre is out. So museums should not seek to represent all.

I was stuck between C and E and picked E. Maybe Sartore reviews movies that are easier to tell people that people like or dislike them than the ones Kelly reviews.

This rules out an alternative explanation, which is a very common strengthener on the LSAT.

Read a bunch of these answers and am still confused as to why B doesn't weaken. It's a possible alternative hypothesis as to why disease X and IN size are correlated. It's possible that disease Z causes both disease X and larger IN, therefore larger IN wouldn't be the cause of disease X.

Some people are saying "yes but that's too many assumptions/jumps to make" - except that I feel like I've seen questions where this is exactly the answer.

My analysis of mistakes I made & why the correct answer is correct:

MISTAKES

1) I took "surest way to increase" as the rule, not "never change or reject" - as a result i said well if it's surest, it doesn't mean all, therefore we could just add more. This is inaccurate - the rule is keep or reject.

2) I took "except by rejecting believe when given adequate evidence" as reject → adequate evidence, so if you have adequate evidence, you don't necessarily need to reduce, so the "fewer and fewer" does not apply. But this is not a conditional argument. it is a causal argument. so it's saying, when you have adequate evidence, you reject.

3) I disliked the difference between "adequate" evidence and "any" evidence. but it still works. any evidence = keep or reject. adequate evidence = reject. so some evidence may just be keep. this is not contrary to what is being said.

I chose E first because of issue 2 above. - we could just keep some false beliefs even when presented with evidence against them, therefore we would not have fewer and fewer beliefs, therefore we don't need all correct beliefs. The other issue with E is that it says "the beliefs we need in order to have many beliefs" - and I read it as "the beliefs we need in order to survive" - I needed to slow down

I chose B on BR because of issue 1 above. If it says "surely" and not "only", then it doesn't mean that we have to follow it, just that it's the best one (for whatever reason - doesn't matter). and if it's not the only one, then why can't we accept new beliefs?

CORRECT ANSWER

The answer is A. I needed to parse this out

No justification for the following

Surest way [...] = the statistician's argument

[...] must not hinder [...] = cannot hurt/go against/make false/...

one's ability to survive = survival

Statistician's argument must not hurt survival.

premises: statistician's argument leads to not having many beliefs (fewer and fewer)

having fewer & fewer beliefs may mean we don't survive. ok, then the argument still stands and the author is wrong to say that they are wrong.

the jump is that we have to survive. which is to say, we cannot have anything that will hinder survival.

that makes the conclusion work: statisticians mean we won't survive, but we do survive, so statisticians are wrong.

in the answer choices: look for something that says we must survive

A: author missing premise: statistician's argument CANNOT harm our survival.

if the statistician's argument cannot harm our survival, then the statistician's argument cannot harm needing fewer & fewer beliefs.

So the statistician's argument's conclusion is at odds with one of the author's premises. therefore the conclusion does not follow

~~~~~

This took me a while and typing it out helps me get in my brain - someone pls tell me if i have it all right, if there is a step i missed, if there is a quicker/easier way to see this beyond just "well cross out anything that doesn't talk about survival"

Thank you!

@PierceBerardi "best" is a subset of "good"

@ReaganHaydon Monique says best art critics can only "render their criticism after shedding biases"

in other words

Criticism (from the best art critics) requires getting rid of your biases

And if it's from the best, it's probably good criticism

So good criticism requires no bias.

If the missing piece is good v best

Remember that the answer choice says "sometimes". If good is partially from the best and partially from the rung below best, then the rule still holds.

@AidenAguilar And what would we consider ordinary fairness to be when critiquing something?

Being unbiased

So if Tania says critics are not fair in the ordinary sense, she is saying critics are not unbiased. therefore they must have bias.

@spashforth

You said you don't understand how Monique is not saying that good art criticism is always unbiased.

MONIQUE

She IS saying that good art criticism is unbiased.

Monique says the critics have to "shed all of the biases" in order to render a criticism.

Have to shed biases = unbiased

The criticisms must be unbiased

So your issue is a misunderstanding of Tania

TANIA

Break it down

Good art critics are not fair.

What is fair? Fair is unbiased.

Why?

Because only if you are not interested then you can give an unbiased opinion.

So being unbiased requires being uninterested.

Why are good art critics not fair (unbiased)?

Because art is a passion, therefore good criticism of art cannot be separated from emotion.

The conclusion is NOT that good criticism of art cannot be separated from emotion.

Conclusion: A good art critic is not fair in the ordinary sense.

Premise 1: to be unbiased, you have to be disinterested

Premise 2: Art is a passion

Premise 3 (subconclusion): good criticism cannot be separated from emotion

So to be a good art critic, you are not fair (you must be biased) because art is a passion, and criticism must involve emotion.

In other words

Art is passion

So good art criticism involves emotion

Being unbiased requires being disinterested

So art critics are not fair

The assumption (which is a simple one, so the LSAT will allow for this; and secondly assumptions in causal arguments are fine, it is the conditional arguments we need to account for) is that "fair" and "bias" are connected.

THEREFORE

Art criticism must have emotions about art. If you have emotions, you are interested. If you are interested, you cannot give a biased opinion. Art critics must be biased.

in other words

Monique: criticism cannot be biased (they must shed it before criticizing)

Tania: criticism must be biased (critics have emotions, you cannot have emotions to be unbiased)