Student Question:

Cant d also be false, what if there is another reason the mail came late?

Tutor Response:

To see why D 100% has to be true/cannot be false, let’s recount the stimulus:

1. If correctly addressed, almost all mail arrives in two business days

2. Of the few correctly addressed that take longer, it is because they were damaged

3. Most mail overall takes three business days or more

So then what must be true? Consider number 1 and 3.

We know that most mail is NOT correctly addressed, because if it was, almost all of it would come in two days.

However, the stimulus tells us most mail takes 3+ days. Accordingly, it must be true that “A large proportion of mail is incorrectly addressed.”

You bring up what if there is another reason it came late, but the stimulus is very clear about ‘if correctly addressed, almost all WILL come within two days.’

Here is a practical recommendation:

It is very tempting to make up your own theories/assumptions, but that is exactly what the LSAT wants you to do on must be true questions.

Instead, on must be true questions, use the facts given and ONLY the facts given.

So while you may want to say ‘what if there are other reasons’ the stimulus straight up said ‘if correctly addressed, almost all will come in two days.’

So if most mail does not come in two days, a bunch of them must not have been correctly addressed.

Student Question:

I am confused about D as it does nothing to engage with the “basic” element of the educator’s argument. I see how it engages with the “in depth” piece but going from a few Greek tragedies to any Greek tragedy seems to be the same level of complexity, not like you are not starting at something more basic. Even the correct answer explanation leaves out the word “basic” which puzzles me even more. Thank you for your help!

Tutor Response:

On a most strongly supported question, I recommend you view the stimulus as a set of facts, rather than an argument.

If you think of it as an argument, you risk wanting the answer to grapple with the caveat the author threw in at the end.

Regarding the ‘basic’ aspect, the answer choice is being supported by the second sentence.

The support for: “It is easier to understand any Greek tragedy after one has analyzed a few of them in detail.”

Is:” if students achieve a solid grasp of the basic concepts and investigatory techniques in a subject, they will be able to explore the breadth of that subject on their own after the course is over.”

So by analyzing a few Greek tragedies in detail, it is implied that a student would explore the basic concepts regarding the work.

Student Question:

What is the difference between a “primary purpose” question and a “main idea” question? I always thought you approach them essentially the same way, but I had both of these questions for one passage

Tutor Response:

The primary purpose of a passage is to deliver the main point. In other words, it is essentially the same thing, and approaching them as the same should not be detrimental.

For instance, in this case:

Main idea: Neurophysiological studies have established that the platypus uses its bill to locate its prey underwater.

Primary Purpose: present some recent scientific research on the function of the platypus's bill

Notice how by ‘presenting some recent scientific research on the function of the platypus’s bill,’ the author demonstrates how ‘Neurophysiological studies have established that the platypus uses its bill to locate its prey underwater.’

In other words, the primary purpose is to deliver the main point.

A practical way you can approach these is by leveraging the passage ID. This was a phenomenon-hypothesis passage, so naturally the hypothesis takes a key role in the main idea, and the purpose is probably laying out the evidence - which is exactly what these answers did.

Student Question:

So I had originally eliminated B because I thought that it led to the wrong conclusion (impermissible instead of shout not implement) but i’m now seeing that those can be construed to be synonymous. is this allowed because this is a PSA? and would this be wrong if it was a SA?

Tutor Response:

No, this is okay to do on sufficient assumptions too.

In fact, the LSAT loves throwing out synonyms in hopes that you won’t notice they are talking about the same thing.

This is done all the time, but especially on inferences, most strongly supported, sufficient assumptions, and pseudo sufficient assumptions!

Student Question:

This question I was thinking, because it says ”individuals that buy new cars” we do not have to worry about groups of people. Are we suppose to assume individuals does not talk about an individual person but rather a group of individuals? When I read answer choice E I cannot sympathize with it at all. In my head I am thinking, okay great so now individuals purchasing a car makes up a smaller percentage of the population... but we are trying to weaken that individuals pay more on average, not that each purchase is more, or that each group is more?

Tutor Response:

Yes, think of individuals who buy new cars as a group of people.

The reason that E works is because of the flaw in the argument. Let’s explore the flaw:

Notice how the first premise says ‘the average price paid for a car.’ It does NOT say, the average price paid for a car by an individual.

In other words, the average price paid for a car in general going up could be because businesses are buying super expensive cars. However, the author assumes that individuals are the ones spending more money on cars, raising the average price.

From this perspective, it becomes really important to know who is spending more money on cars making the average price go up; is it individuals or someone else?

Answer choice E makes it so that it is someone else spending the money; in turn, weakening the author's argument that individuals are spending more.

Student Question:

How would you eliminate A? I found A to be supported based on the first couple of lines, "...commercialism plays an important, though indirect, role..?" Also, what are some clues to know that the whole passage talks about the typical origins of bepop?

Additionally, for the sake of being thorough, how do we know the author is referring to the typical origins of bepop as the thing that "...idealizes the circumstances....?"

Tutor Response:

I’ll answer each question in order. 

Question one: 

Because the question is asking for the ‘typical account’ of bepop. So while the author interjects and says commercialism always played a part - as you point out - the typical account thought otherwise. Take a look at this quote:

“This insistence that bebop is anticommercial….” 

Who insists that? The typical account. 

Question two: 

Not the entire passage, but much of the passage regards the typical account. Here are the clues: 

“In typical accounts of the beginnings of bebop” is the first sentence of the passage. 

Then, here are the following first sentences of each subsequent paragraph: 

“These metaphors…” Notice the referential language. 

“But phrases like "billion-dollar rut” Again, referencing something, this time a phrase, that was brought up in reference to typical accounts. 

Then finally, in the last paragraph, the author interjects: 

“This insistence that bebop is anticommercial may suit the needs of contemporary jazz discourse” 

Again, notice the referential language ‘this insistence.”

Question three: 

Because of the sentence preceding it: 

“This insistence that bebop is anticommercial may suit the needs of contemporary jazz discourse, but it is a poor basis for historical inquiry” 

So then, the ‘it’ from the quote you mention, refers to the insistence that it is anticommercial, and who makes that insistence? The typical account. 

Practical takeaway: 

Hone in on referential language. Notice how the quote you mention last says ‘it.’ You have to peel the layer back, what is ‘it’ ? The ‘it’ is then another referential phrase, so you have peel that layer too. So on and so forth. 

Consider doing a drill where you read passages untimed and highlight every referential phrase, figuring out what it is referring to. Once you do that a handful of times, consider highlighting those phrases under time pressure. Once you see them naturally, you can stop highlighting them. 

Student Question:

Why is D right over E?

Tutor Response:

To understand why D is right and E is wrong, we have to begin with the stimulus.

The stimulus boils down to:

1. Every time she uses the machine it squeaks

2. For it to squeak, it has to be plugged in

Conclusion:

It is usually plugged in

Flaw:

What if the vast majority of the time, it is not plugged in. It’s just plugged in at the times she uses the machine, which is possibly every Monday, for instance, but not plugged in every other day. Abstractly, the flaw is over generalizing.

Answer choice E boils down to:

Read the book -> Most found disturbing - > vivid imagination

Conclusion:

Vivid imagination -> most find plot disturbing.

The flaw here is an improper conditional reversal - notice how it swapped B and C.

Contrast this with answer choice D:

Read the book -> Most found disturbing - > vivid imagination

Conclusion: most people must have vivid imaginations.

This is a classic overgeneralization, just like our stimulus. It reasons that because of the small subset of people that read the book who have a vivid imagination, that most people in general have a vivid imagination.

Student Question:

Is answer choice D correct because it points out the fact that there was substantial information left out, which does, in fact, make the reporting biased? Is it biased because that information was left out? Would that make any other argument weakened because of important information being omitted?

Tutor Response:

Before I directly answer your question, here is the framework I use when approaching weakening questions.

As I read the stimulus, my mindset is that the argument is bad. In other words, I am anticipating the conclusion to go way too far/not be true.

In this case, the stimulus explains how there were way more interviews of those against the highway than those for the highway. Then, as I read the conclusion, I am expecting the author to go too far.

The conclusion is then that the coverage was biased.

Because I know the argument is not necessarily true, question why that may not be the case. In other words, why is the coverage not necessarily biased, but actually fair?

Well, what if the general population is roughly against the highway at a 2:1 ratio? Just because the media interviewed more people against it, that doesn’t mean it was biased, maybe more people are just against it!

From this perspective, answer choice D works perfectly: “Before the program aired, over twice as many people were against building the freeway than were in favor of it.”

So when you ask is it ‘Because it points out the fact that there was substantial information left out, which does, in fact, make the reporting biased’ it is the opposite! It is pointing out there was information left out which makes the reporting not biased.

And to directly answer your other question, yes! A common way to weaken is to bring up important information that was left out; fundamentally, every correct weakening answer choice does that!

Student Question:

Because the stimulus specifically says 'people TASTE/ SEE/ SMELL', so we can assume that the experiment only concerns five senses, and eliminate B because it is out of scope?

Tutor Response:

It’s exactly as you say:

“Because the stimulus specifically says 'people TASTE/ SEE/ SMELL', so we can assume that the experiment only concerns five senses, and eliminate B because it is out of scope.”

As you imply, the stimulus is all about confusing/overlap between those 5 senses, so the introduction of new senses is irrelevant to us, it does not impact the argument.

Student Question:

For AC E I understand why people are saying it contradicts the premise in the stimulus, but I thought the negation of it would weaken, hence be the answer choice.

Tutor Response:

The negation would weaken, suggesting that maybe daytime installation is worse. But, it is still possible that nighttime installation would be even more expensive, so the argument could still stand.

Remember, generally speaking, a negated answer choice for a necessary assumption needs to destroy the argument, not just possibly weaken it. We need the conclusion to be incredibly unlikely or impossible when you negate the answer choice.

Contrast that with negating B - the argument would be DESTROYED.

Student Question:

I wonder if you could clarify the wording of A? It says 'more comprehensive', which I interpreted as 'more details/ aspects' of violent crimes, but maybe not more events. Whereas the stimulus seems to indicate that there are more violent crimes being covered.

Tutor Response:

The stimulus is saying there are more violent crimes and then points to more newspaper coverage of violent crimes as evidence - as you seem to allude to.

Also, just like you said when answer choice A says ‘comprehensive’ it suggests more details, not necessarily more events of crime.

In other words, answer choice A and the stimulus conflict.

AC A is implying newspapers are covering crime more because they are more detailed/thorough these days, where the stimulus is implying newspapers are covering crime more because more crime is actually happening.

Considering that this is a weakening question, the answer choice should conflict with the stimulus, as you allude to!

Student Question:

Why is E wrong?

Tutor Response:

To understand why E is wrong, let’s quickly recount the argument:

‘if there are any species that we want to preserve, then we should try to preserve as many species as possible’ because if an unwanted one dies, then the ones we like might die too.

Considering this is a PSA question, we want to do our best in forcing the conclusion to be true as much as possible. In other words, we want to make it so that we really do have to preserve as many species as possible, if we want to preserve any.

Answer choice E introduces the concept of doing whatever would have the best short term consequences. But would preserving as many species as possible have the best short term consequences? We have no idea.

Try to find in the stimulus where it supports that trying to preserve all species has the best short term consequences - you can’t, because it is not supported.

Here is another way to explain it, and a practical approach:

1. ID It

2. Shift your mindset, being especially sensitive to prescriptive claims like ‘should’ in the conclusion

3. ID conclusion, trying your best to force it to be true

In this case, the conclusion: if interest - > should preserve max

We need a direct link.

AC E gave: If best short term - > do it

But we don’t know if ‘best short term’ is triggering - so it is useless.

Student Question:

Can you reword the correct answer?

Tutor Response:

Sure! Here it goes, piece by piece:

“Polls of those who graduated from a university more than five years before being polled”

Translation: People asked that are 5+ years out of college

“show a higher percentage of people in favor of reducing government social services than”

Translation: More of them support cutting government welfare than…

“do polls of the overall population”

Translation:

An overall poll of people

Putting it all together:

People asked that are 5+ years out of college, more of them support cutting government than an overall poll of people.

This is significant because the conclusion states “people with a university education are more likely to favor retaining or increasing the present level of government social services” but if that is only temporarily the case (5+ year poll) then the conclusion is weakened.

Student Question:

When answering this question, I though E was a trick question before it used least to refer to less. In the core curriculum, we learnt that some can mean at least one, but at least one does not mean some. Most implies some, but some does not imply most, etc. What I am trying to ask is how to properly discern during a test when something does not have to fit the rule and when it does.

Tutor Answer:

Think of the importance of the strength of language like ‘some’, ‘all’, etc, as general guidelines; but ultimately, the context of the question is what makes you decide what they mean and their significance.

In this case, we want a rule that reinforces the stimulus’ conclusion.

The stimulus essentially reasoned: ‘use the less powerful FreezAll unit’ because it was ‘powerful enough for his needs.’

So when AC E says ‘if deciding between two products that meet your needs, choose the one that is least powerful’ - it strengthens our conclusion.

Although the ‘least’ is peculiar language, it fits the context of the stimulus (choosing the least powerful option between the two AC units).

So while it is very useful to memorize what all the quantifiers mean and imply, let the stimulus/question type also guide you.

Student Question:

I don't see why d was eliminated so fast because tax incentives would mean more profit?

Tutor Answer:

Yes, it would presumably mean more profits, but the key point is how those profits are made. For it to be analogous with the cynical bean counters, they have to get more profit by cheapening/messing with the product.

From that perspective, messing with the tax system rather than the product does not work.

I highly recommend you occasionally do this when you get an answer wrong: think about what it would have had to say for it to be right.

In this case, something like “a business executive who convinces her company to use cheaper clothing in their product line in order to cut costs.” Something along those lines would have worked because it is similar in adjusting the product.

Student Question:

I’m having trouble understanding why A is right. Specifically, why must it be true that some pythons “may appear fine. Doesn’t the fact that its difficult and not impossible to detect render it possible that “no pythons hatched in North America will appear fine and die within six months as a result of the liver disease?”

Tutor Response:

Yes, I agree with all of your points; however, the language of the answer choice protected itself from your criticism.

By stating that they ‘may’ appear fine, the answer choice hedges its bets - more or less accepting that the points you bring up are a possibility.

Further, ‘appearing fine’ is not necessarily inconsistent with not actually being fine. Arguably, a veterinarian could know they have the disease, but the python still ‘appears’ fine. For instance, if I had a disease you could not detect, I think it would be fair to say I 'appear fine' even though I am not.

Granted, all of this is up for interpretation and rooted in semantics, but the inference is very heavily supported - at the very least, it is STRONGLY supported, if not forced.

In contrast, none of the answer choices are anywhere near this supported.

So practically speaking, I can see not immediately choosing A - due to the concerns you bring up - but after analyzing the rest of the answer choices, you would hopefully realize AC A is extremely supported - much more than the others.

Student Question:

Why is C wrong? The passage says the historians were “reconstructing a glorious African past for the purposes of overturning degrading representations of blackness.” If the historians were seeking to overturn degrading representations, and use the “reconstruction” of a glorious past, then wouldn’t that mean they were using the glorious past as the basis of establishing implications that overturned degrading representations.

Tutor Response:

Remember that our author thinks that the early historians were trying to create a glorious past in order to form a common identity. In fact, the author states they were “engaged in a sort of nation building.”

In other words, our author thinks these historians were creating something.

From that perspective, answer choice C does not go far enough. Yes, they may have investigated the implications of the past, but where is the purpose of this investigation? The key is that they reconstructed/reshaped the past in order to create a new identity.

Notice how the past is actually a reconstruction, so in a way, they created more so than investigated a past - and ultimately, it was to create a new identity - answer choice C fails to capture both these points.

In contrast, notice how answer choice E is about ‘shaping’ capturing the active role the historians played in creating a past and identity.

Student Question:

feel like C and E both force the test taker to add their own assumptions. For C to be correct, you ahve to assume that the drought would kill off predators of mosquitos more than it would kill of mosquitos. For E to be correct, you have to assume that for some reason, mosquitos need plant growth to breed. Why is it more appropriate to make the assumptions that makes C correct as opposed to E?

Tutor Response:

The assumption with C is more appropriate because the gap between a drought and the wetland predators dying is smaller than the gap between new plant growth and mosquitos subsequently flourishing.

Notice how within the context of a wetland, a drought has a negative connotation. In fact, it is the basis of the ‘confusion’ in the resolve question - why would a drought mean mosquitos perform better. Accordingly, it is safer to assume that the drought will have adverse effects on predators in the habitat then it is to assume that new plant growth helps mosquitos. On that note, what connotation does new plant growth have? We have absolutely no reference point for judging the effects of new plant growth, so we can’t say if they’d hurt, help, or do nothing for mosquitos.

Having said all of that, I agree, they both take assumptions.

As a practical recommendation, try to stick to the spirit of the stimulus. In this case, drought had a clear negative connotation, and thus the negative assumption regarding the drought was safer to make.

Student Question:

What is the flaw, is it in the premises or conclusion?

Tutor Response:

Fundamentally, you always want to think about the flaw being in the conclusion. The reason is that, on the LSAT, we take all the premises as true. Accordingly, if we think of the premises as flawed, we may violate that rule.

Using this framework, the conclusion is flawed - to see how, let’s recall the argument.

The argument starts off by giving us one way someone feels comfortable approaching - being the same age.

It then tells us that most friendships started by someone approaching.

Following that, the argument concludes that most long-term friendships involve people of the same approximate age.

The LSAT is trying to trick you by making you feel like since friendships start by approaching, and one way to be comfortable approaching is by being the same age - that friends are usually the same age.

But remember, there are many other reasons someone could feel comfortable approaching! For instance, maybe being coworkers makes you feel comfortable approaching, and thus many friendships involve coworkers - regardless of age. I highly recommend you come up with your own examples!

Essentially, the flaw is confusing one way of doing something, as the only way.

Student Question:

I don’t understand how B is incorrect.

Tutor Response:

Remember that on sufficient assumption questions, we are not just trying to strengthen the conclusion, but 100% force the conclusion to be true.

In this case, the conclusion is:

The accidents are not the fault of the railroad company.

In LSAT terms, this means that the railroad companies do not have any blame - they are completely absolved.

From this perspective, answer choice B is too weak to completely absolve the railroad companies, because adults taking some responsibility, may mean that the railroads are left with the other part of the responsibility.

Further, AC B is incredibly weak - generally speaking. The ‘some’ makes it so that you can read the answer choice as:

“Capable adults have a responsibility to take .00000000000000000001% measures to ensure their own safety.”

The odds that an answer choice that weak can guarantee a conclusion about fully absolving the railroad companies are fairly low.

Practically, the takeaway is that when an argument says X is fully absolved (or any variation of that) , language like ‘some’ will probably fail to ensure that.

Student Question:

the correct answer choice is saying that an animal(any animal) must have all of its feet off the ground at once failing to account for an animal that has only one foot off the ground at all times. Why is this?

Tutor Response:

To understand why, let’s recall the goal of a sufficient assumption question:

For a sufficient assumption question, the right answer forces the conclusion to be 100% true.

In forcing the conclusion to be 100% true, the right answer is allowed to bring in new information, and usually, it is quite powerful/over the top information, because to force a conclusion, you usually need strong language/concepts.

In this case, the conclusion is:

So the Asian elephant does not actually run.

How can we force that to be true?

Well, if answer choice B says to run you need all your feet off the ground, then elephants 100% do not run; because they always keep at least one foot on the ground.

We know that they always keep one foot on the ground because the stimulus states that while walking they always keep a foot down, and when they speed up, they merely take the steps quicker. In other words, even when they ‘run’, they always have at least one foot down.

And if answer choice B is true, you need all feet off the ground to be considered running, accordingly, elephants do not actually run since they have a foot down.

Student Question:

In the explanation of why B is wrong, they say there’s no information given about military decision making, but this is supported - on analyses of military decision making, there are unwarranted presures towards uniformity, including self-censorship....

Tutor Response:

I agree with you that we do have information about military decision makers. However, the key point that makes answer choice B incorrect is that it says ‘expected.’

We do not have any information regarding if a high degree of conformity is expected from them. While we know that it happens, we do not know if it is expected to happen. Similarly, while we know there is some form of pressure, we do not know if that stems from expectations or something else.

For instance, my favorite team might have lost badly, but that does not mean losing badly was expected.

Practically, the takeaway here is that you have to process every word carefully. This answer choice is extremely attractive for all the reasons you said. In addition, it probably speaks to many of us intuitively - ‘yea, military members are expected to conform.’

However, just that one word - expected - makes it incorrect because there is no evidence from the passage supporting it. The takeaway then is to process every single word and be able to point to evidence for it when analyzing an answer choice.

Student Question:

so this question wasnt asking what author passage B was skeptical/diasgree with Author of the passage A? is it safe to conlcude if get a question like this that says “following ideas” then it would mean its talking the other person not the author??

Tutor Response:

Whenever a question asks about ‘an idea mentioned in passage x’ it could be anyones view - the authors, or someone they mention.

It simply has to be an idea discussed in passage X.

The way I would approach this question is two fold:

1. Was the idea discussed in passage A? No, delete it. Yes, move onto step 2

2. What does passage B think about this idea

Notice how I am not thinking about whether it's the author of passage A or a separate viewpoint from passage A, only if it was mentioned in passage A.

Student Question:

Why cant I just have all my sufficient conditions be “few children” rather than “most children”? Why do i want “most people don't do X” as opposed to “few people do X”?

Tutor Response:

You could have the sufficient be ‘few children’ but in this case, ‘most children’ is better for a lot of students.

The reason ‘most children’ is better is because of the second part - the necessary:

Most children - > Do not read

The reason we want ‘do not read’ is because the conclusion is about few children developing an interest in literature. It is then more intuitive to make the premise about something that will make it so that kids do not develop an interest in literature - like not reading.

Having said all of that, the key point is to make it intuitive to you. If you find switching the language up weird, don’t do it. As long as your diagrams are fundamentally accurate, you should be able to get the right answer.

However, I’d at least practice switching conditionals around in order to see if maybe you do ultimately find manipulating the premises to match the ideas found in the conclusion intuitive after all .

Student Question:

Could you please further explain why C is wrong? Also, how do we know Indians will eat Indian curry? Seems like an unwarranted assumption.

Tutor Response:

Before analyzing the answer choices, note that the argument boils down to a simple causal claim:

The author believes turmeric causes cognitive decline to slow down.

The issue then with answer choice C is that it does not talk about this causal relationship. Instead, it talks about something that the argument already accounted for - ‘Indians eat curry regularly.’ While we didn’t know that in general, we were already talking about the elderly Indians who do eat it regularly, so, the answer choice tells us nothing new regarding the key population being studied.

Remember, the point in question is whether or not turmeric is preventing cognitive decline. Telling us that all these other folks eat curry does not help answer whether or not turmeric causes a decline in mental deterioration.

From this perspective, AC E helps suggest that, yes, it is turmeric helping cognitive decline. It’s saying ‘remember that Indian population with little decline? Their curry has a bunch of turmeric’ leading us to believe ‘hmm, maybe it is the turmeric.’

Having said that, you have to make the odd assumption that Indian people eat Indian curry - which may not be true. But notice that the question asks you which answer choice ‘most strengthens.’

By opening the door to the idea that the Indian folks in question might be eating a curry super high in turmeric, it is reenforcing the possibility that turmeric helps slow down cognitive decline. So while I agree that it is not forced, because maybe they don’t eat Indian curry, the possibility has been raised, and thus most helps to strengthen.

Here is some practical advice:

On your first pass, you should be super skeptical of all the answer choices. So maybe you delete all the answer choices. After that, try to interpret the answer choices with more of an open mind, letting in as small of assumptions as possible.

Utilizing that process, answer choice E is the only one that works albeit with a weird assumption. So while I agree that Indian people do not necessarily eat Indian curries, it’s less of a jump needed than what any of the other answer choices would require! You can look at it as the best of what seems to be bad answers - this is often how the cookie crumbles on really hard strengthen/weakening questions!