This argument is equivalent to a hot bag of scat. It requires several assumptions to keep track of, making the question stem a maze filled with traps. I guess it was nice of the test writers to write C’s syntax in a lucid manner, so, that if one can get past A & B, then one has a better chance to match C’s flaw to the stimulus.

This question seems to be one that practically requires testers to run a POE, because one cannot rely on such heavy usage of causal-mechanism assumptions. Considering the text density of the question, the test writers probably needed to find a way to reduce the statistical test time in the aggregate of testers for the purpose of making the curve breaker questions more challenging with time constraints.

Quick internet search for the definition of “mechanism.”

Mechanism:

1. a system of parts working together in a machine; a piece of machinery.

2. a natural or established process by which something takes place or is brought about.

If question 13 had included the second use of the word “mechanism” in paragraph 3, in addition to paragraph 1, in the question stem, the link between “mechanism” and “physical process” would have been more apparent.

“Mechanism” in the first paragraph exists more in the abstract, making it harder to pin down to something physical taking place. Its usage in the third paragraph, after taking in the majority of the passage, shines a light on the link between the two concepts, though, it still feels like a weak one.

The only thing that saves A is that E is wrong. I can only figure is that “scientific theory” is too broad a concept to link with “mechanism,” and, conditionally, the definition of “mechanism” can more directly subsume the concept of “physical process.”

Humans could be considered microscopic to beings like Cthulhu.

I think it depends on the diction of the other answer choices.

Hypothetically, if B was edited to “flexible-schedule policies should be expected to improve the morale of some individual employees,” removing the unsupported second half, then it would be more supported. Though not the same idea, increased satisfaction could cause improved morale. It’s a weak causal link and one not directly supported by the stimulus, so you’re justified in casting doubt on B for its use of “moral,” But, with the edit, I think it’s one to keep in mind should all the other answer choices fall short in comparison.

E uses the words “the typical benefits” to encompass those specified in the stimulus. Much more supported than “morale.” If E otherwise used something like “the typical [inproved skill set caused by] flexible-schedule policies cannot be…,” there would be far more of a gap to link between “skill set” and “satisfaction.” With B and E edited this way, B would be better suited to be the more supported answer choice.

Being critical of word choice seems to be a strategy rewarded by the test writers, especially for those 4- and 5-star questions. Hope this helps!

This is a pretty good argument that calls out the advertisements for misleading people generally of the risk of unrelieved heartburn when, in reality, the risk is limited to a small percentage of people.

OPP implies:

[unrelieved heartburn] >likely cause> [esophageal cancer]

Conclusion:

Simply false ([unrelieved heartburn] >likely cause> [esophageal cancer])

= [unrelieved heartburn] >likely cause> [esophageal cancer]

Premise:

[People w/ severe heartburn] ←s→(5%) [Barrett’s esophagus]

[unrelieved heartburn] >likely cause (increased risk)> [esophageal cancer] → [People w/ severe heartburn] ←s→(5%) [Barrett’s esophagus]

Within the set of people who experience heartburn, there is an additional set that experience severe heartburn. Within this set is another set with Barrett’s esophagus that comprises of 5 percent. Only this tiny set of people can exist with increased risk or likely effect of esophageal cancer from heartburn, perhaps left unrelieved.

This argument uses a combination of set logic, conditional logic, and grammar to strike many blows to OPP.

I really hate it when they use a normative statement as the answer choices for NA questions when normative statements fit better in PSA or SA questions. This question would probably be easier to reason with had it been a PSA(r).

The stimulus’s grammar caused my brain to trip up. During the PT I could not confidently identify the conclusion. That forward pointing referential, “on the contrary,” and the explanation of the two surveys being compared convolute the argument beyond my ability to assess it in a LSAT-timely manner.

Once one finishes grappling with the grammar, the argument is fairly accessible. It’s two premises and one conclusion. AC A is the only one that strengthens the argument while all the others surprisingly weaken it. If the question stem was a weaken-expect framework, the answer choices would work just as well.

I often have similar concerns of holes in reasoning in the stimulus and question stem for way too many LR questions than I’m comfortable having. In these situations I find it absolutely necessary to run the POE. The goal is to find the AC that would help most resolve the paradox.

The point you make weakens C as a reasonable CAC, however, in comparison to the other ACs, C would help most to resolve the paradox in this case in this case. If the family also relied on income from these other sheep products, then significant price drops would reduce their overall earnings from these sources. This decrease in income could offset the increased income from wool sales, explaining why the family’s overall prosperity did not increase commensurately. The reasoning for C is similar to a PSA(r), conditional speaking. NOT IDEAL.

JY explains well for why the other ACs fall short, relative to C. For an AC to be b

Hope this helps!

The conclusion that most of these nations are probably incorrect hinges on the assumption that, in most of these nations, the oil reserves did change during 1997. Therefore, the argument assumes that in most cases, oil fields were either drained, new fields were discovered, or both.

B directly addresses this assumption by stating: “It is likely that in 1997, in most of the nations that stated that their oil reserves were unchanged, old oil fields were drained or new oil fields were discovered, or both.” This is necessary for the argument to hold because if the oil reserves didn’t change in most of these nations, then the conclusion that most of them are probably incorrect wouldn’t be valid.

By using the negation test, if we suppose that it’s not likely that these nations had changes in their oil reserves, the argument’s conclusion that they are probably incorrect would no longer be supported.

I picked C during PT. Poor choice. C stipulates that a nation’s oil reserves both dropped and rose during the year. The argument only needs the assumption that oil reserves change (either drop or rise), making it unlikely for them to remain unchanged. Requiring that both events happen in the same nation is more specific than necessary for the argument to hold. The argument is based on typical patterns (gradual drops and sudden rises) occurring in nations generally, not on a combined occurrence in a single nation. Concluding with “most of the nations stating…” should have hinted that C is incorrect. At least two nations need to be mistaken and one to be not mistaken.

If you swap out “alcohol” for “arsenic” or “mountain dew”, the flaws might become more apparent.

I think the phrase “from most major manufactures” deserves more clarification on how it translates into ←s→ in terms of sets.

Halogen lamps

from most major manufacturers

are on display at FL

First, the super-superset is:

Halogen lamps from origins (like hand crafted or produced serendipitously)

Next, the superset is:

Halogen lamps from manufactures (like minor and major manufactures)

Third set:

Halogen lamps from major manufacturers

Finally, the subset explicit in the stimulus:

Halogen lamps from most major manufacturers

In my diagram, I drew the circle of “most major manufacturers” into a subsuming circle that is also subsumed into another circle which is subsumed by another circle.

From “from most major manufacturers” we can only imply “some” in the context of the stimulus. We know nothing about the quantifiable data regarding halogen lamps from other origins and its relation to the quantifiable data regarding halogen lamps from major manufacturers.

I really don’t like that my mind got ensnared while grappling with the word “most” during the PT. Upon BR, considering what “from most major manufactures” was not saying and what the phrase cannot support if this question was an MSS was a helpful way to tackle it.

I think it has something to do with the argument’s conclusion.

Rule/Principle:

[Environmentally responsible corporations] ↔ [Corporations that do all they can to pollute less]

CEO:

(We are an environmentally responsible corporation ↔ We are a corporation that does all it can to pollute less) Falsely criticized/Negation

Implied Conclusion:

We are an environmentally responsible corporation ↔ We are a corporation that does all it can to pollute less

I’m not sure if the conclusion could imply that they “must have succeeded,” as explicitly stated by AC D, only that they do all they can to pollute less. I would like some clarification on AC D too :(

#help

Huh. By that reasoning alone, A should also be correct because it doesn’t specify which predators are affected. The stimulus makes it explicit that it refers to the subset of predators that are predators of the snowshoe hares. A could be referring to other predators too, like praying mantis or bug-praying birds.

They have a search feature built into the testing UI now.

Okay, here’s my captured notational analysis of paragraph four.

Inference 1:

Domain: The evidence suggests

([Extended/sustained intense training] + [Common level talent]) → [Accounts for difference between good & outstanding]

Conversely,

[Account for difference between good & outstanding] → [Invoke innate talent]

= [Account for difference between good & outstanding] + [Invote innate talent]

Inference 2:

Premise

([Extended/sustained intense training] → [Interest & desire])

Premise

[Superior/outstanding performers show early signs of interest & desire]

Conclusion:

More likely to be effective predictor of superior/outstanding performers

Motivation v. innate talent

Winner: motivation

I used AI to give me an example of a passage that would be primarily concerned with what AC E of question 24 describes. I found the example to be hella helpful. Here’s the result:

Prompt:

Give me an example a passage that is “relating the theoretical support of an explanation of a phenomenon to the acceptance of that explanation.”

AI Feedback:

Here’s an example of a passage that relates the theoretical support of an explanation of a phenomenon to the acceptance of that explanation:

Passage Example:

In the field of astrophysics, the theory of dark matter has gained widespread acceptance, primarily due to its ability to explain the rotational speeds of galaxies. Observations have shown that galaxies rotate at such high velocities that, without an unseen source of mass, they should fly apart. Classical Newtonian mechanics cannot account for the gravitational forces necessary to hold these galaxies together at such speeds, leading scientists to propose the existence of dark matter—an invisible form of matter that exerts gravitational influence.

However, the acceptance of dark matter as an explanation hinges not only on its empirical fit with observed data but also on its robust theoretical framework. The theory of dark matter is supported by multiple lines of evidence, including its role in cosmic structure formation and its consistency with the cosmic microwave background radiation. These theoretical underpinnings have bolstered confidence in the explanation, despite the fact that dark matter itself has yet to be directly observed.

Thus, while the initial observations of galactic rotation prompted the proposal of dark matter, it is the broader theoretical support, including the consistency with other astrophysical phenomena, that has led to the wide acceptance of the dark matter explanation in the scientific community.

Analysis:

In this passage, the phenomenon is the rotational speeds of galaxies. The theoretical support for the explanation (dark matter) comes from the consistency of the theory with multiple pieces of evidence (galactic rotation, cosmic structure formation, and cosmic microwave background radiation). The passage connects this theoretical support to the eventual acceptance of the explanation by the scientific community.

For practice, I think it’s worth unpacking the casual mechanisms at play within this question.

! = [Increasing demand]

# = [Rise of the internet]

& = [Search capabilities]

$ = [Easier to find]

Causal notation:

Domain: [out-of-print books] + [people intentionally seeking]

( # + & ) causes $ causes !

Conditional notation:

Domain: [out-of-print books]

Because ( # + & ) → ( [people intentionally seeking] + $ ) → !

C.) simply reiterates “$ causes !.” Definitely supported!

B.) People ←s→ Try to find: in-print v. out-of-print. in-print winner.

People ‑m→ Try to find: in-print v. out-of-print. in-print winner.

The stimulus offers no quantifiable information regarding these people and nothing regarding in-print books. We only know about the people who are seeking the out-of-print books having an easier time because of the internet. Not supported!

D.) ( # + & ) causes [possible to search] ‑m→ out-of-print books.

I suppose one could give the idea [possible to search] a pass. Even then, C is more supported. Similar to B, another issue is that the stimulus offers no quantifiable information regarding the locating capabilities of the internet when one searchers for out-of-print books. Unjustifiably generous and kind, D is partially supported at best!

E.) Locate out-of-print books → access to the internet

The stimulus offers no support to this conditional statement. Access to the internet is sufficient to find out-of-print books could be supported, but the internet being a necessity to find these out-of-print books has absolutely no support.

A.) This is a mess.

Book collectors finding book titles did not know existed:

(Past + Internet) v. (Now + internet)

(Now + internet) wins

The introduction of time represented in the word “now” significantly removes support from the stimulus. Information regarding these book collectors in the past is not available, and nothing is offered regarding people in general who are finding books they did not know existed. It has ideas that are relatable to the ideas in the stimulus, but these ideas are hardly supported.

This argument is … messy.

Phenomenon:

[Neanderthal campsite] + [discarded gazelle teeth with coloration] + [teeth indicate hunted throughout the year]

Conclusion:

[The Neanderthals] + [inhabited campsite year-round]

thus,

[nomadic]

Premise:

[Neighboring campsite] + [Cro-Magnons] + [nomadic] + [teeth from gazelles] + [teeth indicate killed during the same season]

Putting all other assumptions aside, like the archaeologists did, here’s my analysis:

The archaeologists are bringing in a principle-/rule-sufficient assumption

[hunting/killing gazelles throughout the year] → [inhabited campsite year-round]

The archaeologists look to the Cro-Mongnon, who are nomadic, campsite. Armed with the SA, they reason that

Domain: Cro-Mongnon

[teeth indicate killed during the same season]

[Nomadic] → [inhabited campsite year-round] → [hunting/killing gazelles throughout the year]

The archaeologists then hypothesize that

Domain: Neanderthal

[teeth indicate hunted throughout the year]

[hunt/killing gazelles throughout the year] → [inhabited campsite year-round] → [nomadic]

C, though not an ideally strong hypothesis, provides the most weakening answer choice. The religious rituals can fall out of times that are not seasonal further explaining why there would be teeth found at the campsite year-round. Taken as truth, the religious rituals hypothesis strikes a blow at the archaeologists’ link between the colored teeth and the idea of hunting throughout the year, thus weakening the analog between the Neanderthals and Cro-Mongnons.

A, B do not offer better hypothesis. D provides an explanation to the nomadic behavior of the Cro-Magnons. E strengthen the argument.

If you made it this far, I’m sorry. Typing this out helps me sharpen my thought process during the PTs.

Here’s my take on the difference between the stimulus’s diction and AC E’s diction.

For something to be imperceptible, it must land below the threshold of detection by the senses (touch, taste, sound, etc…), marginal or otherwise.

For something to be perceptible, it must land above the threshold of detection by the senses (smell, sight, a bad vibe, etc…).

The stimulus uses “perceptible” to convey the idea that the earthquake can be detected, even if it’s a small detection.

AC E uses “imperceptible” to convey the idea that detection is not possible.

Though to the layperson the meaning pulled out of both phrases results in the same idea, that is that the earthquake is small or marginal, to a lawyer or judge, I’d imagine that the intended meaning must be within the level of precision displayed by the LSAT writers within this question.

C is attractive in that it suggests a competing hypothesis. The other minerals could have been what caused the algae population to increase, furthermore decreasing the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

What caused me to rule out C was the diction/grammar of the stimulus. The author uses the phrases “unusually large amounts of ferrous” and “surprisingly small amounts of carbon dioxide” to indicate the anomaly. Both “unusually” and “surprisingly” convey the meaning, that is to indicate the anomaly, that the author is trying to communicate. For C to be a better answer choice, it would need similar diction, like “[significantly large amounts of] other minerals…” Without this emphasis, C fails to present a sufficiently strong alternative hypothesis.

Upon BR, I found that C also leaves intact the argument in the stimulus. The phrase “in addition to the ferrous material” seems to me that the test writers wanted to make it redundantly clear that the phenomenon described in the stimulus could still be explained by the hypothesis.

JY’s explanation sums it up. C attaches a single ordinary fact to the extraordinary anomaly.

The concept of “most” in “most strongly supported” excuses the test writers’ usage of gaps in their reasoning. The pheromones evaporating “almost immediately” leaves open the possibility that they could still use pheromones between the time of “immediately” and “almost immediately,” perhaps by constantly releasing pheromones and staying closely packed while trailing. Defining the relevant set/domain in its sufficient condition and the use of the word “generally” saved AC C from being a glitch/bad AC.

AC E is not better than AC C because the conditional claim leaves open the possibility that the Saharan ants use other mechanisms, like light reflecting off their bodies or dance communication similar to honeybees, to forage, thus impacting efficiency. I think it could be more supported by including “only using pheromones” in the domain and editing “[generally] forage for food less…”

I think intuition might be the easiest way. My recommendation is to build up your SA skills by drilling SA questions, particularly the SA questions with the KIU category, to sharpen your intuition on conditionals. Happy studying!

Under timed conditions, I only got this one right because I understood that spacecrafts would be the exception to the rule, that it would render the other conditions unnecessary to detect sentient beings outside our solar system, and ACs: A,B,C & E were terrible answer choices. Had they included only conditions found within the stimulus, this question would have taken me 3 minutes or more to have a successful attempt. The test writers were going easy on this question and it is still categorized as a 5-star. Ah NUTS.

In addition to the ambiguous use of “very,” I took issue with the word “generally” in AC B. I have been interpreting “generally” to mean “sometimes,” which is why I read AC B as even more ambiguous. Should I be interpreting it to mean “most of the time?”