@nathanwallace1947892 I didnt even understand what to do

So if anyone is searching about this question, and you were wondering if anyone else just had a hard time even understanding how the question was phrased, you are not alone. I really had to read it multiple times. I got the AC right and I don't think it was a difficult question, but just how the question was written was really hard for me to understand at first.

this was a weird question

surprised B isn't chose more,.. idk.. it tricked me.. ugh..

@jacobblumberg444213 it doesnt make sense to me logically idk whatever

I didn't really understand this stimulus...

@CeciliaBurton1

There used to be more books of intrinsic merit/value written. But not anymore. Why? The author claims that publishers are greedy, since these books didn't net much of a profit, they don't want to publish them anymore.

Cause: books companies want to make $

Effect: fewer books intrinsic value published

We need to weaken this!

WEAKEN --> if you can show new cause with same effect, you can weaken the argument

AC B:

Cause (NEW CAUSE): there has been a notable decline in the number of books written

Effect (SAME EFFECT): fewer books of intrinsic value have been published

(side note: a book can be written and not be published)

This was almost like a paradox.

It is a math-y type question

Really what this comes down to is.... you have 2 ways that these people determine how many fish are in some lake. They take their numbers each and average it together.

It says that way #1 says fish are increasing and way #2 fish are decreasing.

Well, the stim says that they average that number together.

What you have to see is that it says that while these estimates are going separate ways, they have the same RATE of change.

So, even tho you have each group saying different things (increase vs decrease) they are saying their ate of change is the same... so, when they are averaged together, each year the average is not going to be changing much

Again, to me this is paradoxical but the math checks out. We are not asked to figure out WHY they each have different numbers of fish... just what is most supported.

this was way too complicated for me..

Principle questions are hard man!

Wow. Thought it was D. Can’t get these damn 5 star questions right.

My thought is that, how can you say this AC.. is it not a flaw to treat relative as absolute?

I don't get it... where in the stim do we get info about it being unsuccessful

wow super lost on this one

Damn it dude I picked A and then changed it to B

@JohnB yes, but the author concluded that ANY relief so we can weaken by saying, the study was only 1 type of relief. There were similar levels in improvement but the author is saying any improvement from therapy. It’s too strong of a conclusion from the given evidence.

Okay I actually go this one right. But I was doing it untimed & it took me 8 min.

Word of advice. I am about 2 months into studying. Start going through each AC and determine why it’s WRONG, not right.

I felt like D & E were similar, but also traps. Took another look at A. I went back to the stimulus and read that the author is concluding that “any improvement” is from common therapy techniques. That is a really strong claim. AC A can create a gap there by saying, from the study they actually only studied how it improved their immediate symptom relief. The author looks.. well, dumb then.. for concluding “any improvement” from a study that only reported one variable, the improvement.

It’s like saying… I read from a report that taking creatine will help improve your bench press max. So taking creatine will help with any lift in the gym. Huh? The study was only about creatine and benching. You can’t put words in the researchers mouth.

This AC made no sense to me

this was hard :(

So the example is totally irrelevant ?

This one just needed the sufficient condition to trigger.

I have learned on the LSAT that the sentences can be kind of like puzzle pieces. It can make MORE sense to read them out of order... rearrange them...

If you read the last sentence first "if the data is correct, moderate..." then trigger it by saying it is correct... start reading at "since anything that lowers..." and then you can say "In conclusion, moderate exercise lowers..."

To make it stupid simple on this one... this had everything we needed in the stimulus, we just needed the study to be true so everything else in the chain could happen.

@Michael Ogunyemi I do that, it's not helpful

I don't get it!

Got it down to B & D.

dude this test literally punishes your for ONE word. As stated here, AC C is wrong because it says NEVER. Ugh. The concept is right but ONE word makes it wrong..

this question pissed me off