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.

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.

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.

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.

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?”

Here’s my breakdown of the argument. Hope you find it helpful.

Phenomenon:

5,000-year-old copper tools

+

near a Canadian river

+

in a spot w/ easy access to raw tree materials

Correlation:

Recent times

+

Aboriginal peoples of the region where the tools where found exist

+

The Aboriginal peoples use like tools to make canoes from raw tree materials

Conclusion

5,000 yeas ago, likely that Aboriginal peoples existed in Canada

+

Aboriginal peoples built condos from the raw tree materials

I anticipated a blocking-NA because the stimulus is using a correlation to justify its conclusion. Phenomenon-hypothesis arguments that are written this recklessly tend to need a good blocking-NA bc they are terribly unsupported. AC B serves the argument in this way by ensuring that at the bare minimum the copper tools did in fact exist in the region 5,000 years ago.

I took a couple of weeks to read English Grammar for Dummies to inundate my knowledge of sentence structure. It truly helps with identifying “…provided that…” as a sufficient condition within the conditional statement.

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.

If y'all are looking to solidify this info, try going through some of the "Weaken, Strengthen, Evaluate Questions - Causal Logic" section of the CC. I found it helpful.

You know you’re in for a mind twist when you picked the trap AC and have an explanation video nearly 20 minutes long. :,)

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.

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.

I think this question has a deeper understanding that extends beyond the SA framework.

The author presents a correlation and then jumps to a prediction without a hypothesis. The hypothesis serves as the SA needed for the question stem, and the conclusion is a prediction from the hypothesis.

Correlation:

Sal’s excavation results - [smelting furnaces] + [tools of smelted copper and bronze]

Sal’s distinct words for - [copper] + [bronze] + [iron]

——————

Prediction/Conclusion:

Sal smelted [iron]

Hypothesis/SA:

Smelt a metal → word for that metal

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.

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.”

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.

2024

SCOTUS 2024 brought us ever so closer to laissez-faire capitalism taken to its logical extreme with the overturning of the Chevron deference. JY’s fears of the free market taking care of everything are slowly coming true.

2024

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…”