@DevorahLeahPaltiel

7 sage says that the value judgement kind of reasoning is ‘The author’s reasoning requires assigning subjective values or moral weight to concepts within the stimulus, such as that something “should” or “should not” occur 

So that is what is happening here in the argument, and I think I am starting to understand it better 

Bc of S’s past behavior  

We are assigning a value judgment that his future proposal is dishonest (ie should not occur) 

But that is flawed reasoning bc his past doesn't have bearing on the future 

I am really tripped up by the use of 'S proposal is dishonest'. what exactly is dishonest? S himself bc he is a hypocrite? The proposal i a lie and he doesn't mean it? gosh dishonest is such a weird conclusion and I am having such a difficult time thinking through the implications of what dishonest could possibly mean.

quite literally we are saying: 'proposal is DISHONEST' - the proposal is at fault here

another thing that I liked in one of the comments below is discussion on the tense of the words. IE: has taken contributions IN THE PAST, proposal is dishonest IN THE PRESENT.

That is an amazing way to think about why AC E is correct. it matches quite well.

assuming that dishonest means that S is being dishonest about proposing something he didn't keep, I guess in that case you can think about how the past and future are relevant...

@jrn430430 I had the same problem and got it wrong bc I made this mistake. I wrongly assumed that FP is in fact IP and therefore E couldn't be true, so I chose D - I didnt like that it said 'most likely' but I thought bc its an MSS question maybe thats ok -- although I saw the flaw in that.

I wonder how I might not make that mistake. In a comment below someone wrote:

"everything provided is enough to substantiate that flash pasteurization and intensive pasteurization are different and that McElligott is utilizing flash pasteurization"

ugh I wish it said "IP, on the other hand..."

but now that I am rereading it its true, as the comment below states that "everything provided is enough to substantiate..."

If you are paying attention to detail you see that FP quick heating and IP heat over an hour -- they cant possibly be the same thing, they are describing different method. So we DID in fact get the information we needed to see how these methods are not the same!

is there a way to do this??

@dedolence me too!!

I had a really hard time with this question 

A is saying - introducing a scientific theory (theory of everything as it relates to between the extremes of linear and non- linear/ ie: theory of complexity) and how it can explain some cell membrane stuff -- I didn't like that it said ‘often overlooked’ bc we didn't say that the theory of complexity deals with things that are often overlooked 

I chose C bc I thought maybe we are ‘reconciling’ the ‘two divergent theories’ of linear and non - linear (although we didn't call them theories, but who knows) to explain cell membranes (ie - theory of complexity stuff) 

But I suppose calling it a ‘theory’ is too strong / as is saying that we are ‘reconciling’ it because it's not really what we are doing. 

to reconcile: take two opposite things and show how they work together. Here there are two opposite things we are taking, but we are not showing how they work together. We are just saying in their non - extreme there is what we can learn even if we can't learn anything about it in their extreme state - that is not reconciliation of the two opposite things. If anything its avoidance 

I left D opened but didnt like it either bc we said we cant EVER get a satisfactory explanation (for the chaos stuff) 

First of all we never said we cant ever do that 

Second of all it totally misses the third paragraph which is where we seem to be culminating 

I dont like any of the answers here 

Idk maybe going back to A the ‘often overlooked’ stuff refers to ‘behavior of systems that are on the edge of chaos’ 

Again I don't see anywhere where we explicitly say it is often overlooked, but maybe it's asking you to assume it is often overlooked on the basis of the fact that it ‘stuff on the edge’ 

A) If a maple whose trunk is 12+ inch is harmed by tapping → its unhealthy 

grammar is confusing. Make sure to parse well to get this one

For D being generous → tends not to be detrimental of others (yes same as B) 

But we don't know that if /benefit self → to one's detriment, which is what D requires 

I'm tempted to say that is /benefit → detriment to self, but who said they are the same? 

@Sevyy this helps a lot, thanks

@GSp0tSniper it said 'the law.. is as follows' I think that means 'the only law' but ya its hard

@JTF2005 Yes bc I thought 'what if there is a rule I dont know about. We dont know

if Rule --> XYZ

we only know

if XYZ --> Rule

ie, the rule as we know it is only a necessary condition, not a sufficient one, and there can be arrows we dont know of. I struggled with E and C bc I didnt like E for the reason it sates (what if he chose to?) but ultimately decided it was less bad than C bc C assumes there is NO other rule - ie, without writing it out we almost have an 'if and only if'

If rule <--> XYZ

bc it says "the rule... is as follows.."

its tricky

with 12 - Im having a hard time seeing why 'expressing the protagonist's thoughts and fantasies about life in general' is matched to 'tangentially related to the plot'

why would that be tangential? Although thinking about holden from catcher in the Rye helps quite a bit - thank!

Fact:

E--> helps people get along --> prevents /social harmony

Other people :

1) E --> / benefit

2) Kindness and social harmony --> good

so technically if you choose A (or B) wrongly you assumed that other people conflate that

1) if good --> beneficial

2) and if E--> social harmony

then other people have contradictions (in a way, other peoples opinion #2 isn't needed for this Q and is actually a red herring)

but if something prevents something bad that --> beneficial (this is an assumption that you need to make to choose C) and is how C is right

JY your explanation here was perfect. thanks!

Argument: 

S: 95% + SL AB → like 

Like →/manu defect 

SL AB → remarkably free of manu defect

T: some defects only take several years to show up 

C says offers a consideration that undermines the support Sam offers 

Sams support 1) most liked it & 2) if defect → / Like | Conclusion: free of defect 

New info: takes over a year 

Therefore→ support that if defect → /like doesnt hold bc we DONT know if there is a defect or not 

E says: presents new info that implies S conclusion is FALSE 

New info: takes over a year 

Therefore → / remarkably free of defects

Now what's important here is that T isn't saying ‘therefore there isn't a remarkable defect free product’. She is saying there isn't NECESSARILY a remarkable defect free product 

I was tempted bc I thought if the issue presented is ‘some defects take over a year’ 

I thought, does that undermine the fact that the survey said most people liked it? NO 

Does that undermine the fact that most people dont like cars with defects? NO 

So it cant be that 

But the issue it undermines is not either of those proofs in isolation - its those proofs as they relate to the conclusion (therefore, remarkably free) 

When we undermine proof, we don't undermine them in a vacuum. We undermine them in a relationship- that is what we did here. 

We said (as per AC C) bc no one complained → remarkably free 

We aren't saying ‘remarkably free isn' t true’ 

Were saying ‘we cant say remarkably free bc no one complained, bc could be people will complain soon 

We arent undermining the proof. 

We are undermining the proof in relationship to the conclusion 

That is why AC C is correct 

ok maybe an answer to this is the following. In parag 1 it says "Much of legal education, with its focus on judicial decisions and analysis of cases...consists mainly in analyzing past cases to determine their relevance... and arriving at a speculative interpretation of the law"

perhaps this is what A is referring to when it says 'skill in locating references to court decisions.. involving a particular issue"

(I changed statute to issue for clarity sake)

so what would it take to 'locate reference to a particular issue'

1) understand the issue

2) be able to research other issues

3) analyze how that issue (in case law) relates to your current issue

which is exactly what it means to 'analyze past cases to determine relevance'

that is why A is wrong

wohoo!!

I chose D and I see why its wrong and also why B, C, and E are wrong but in terms of A - I see how we are saying that 'locating reference' (ie research) is a skill of studying case law and not statute - that s what JY says in the video but where in the passage do we say that the skill of research comes from studying case law

where do we say that the skill for research does not come from studying statute? I am confused how Id find support for this in the passage. Please help!

In the video JY says 'impossibility' is something that is 'self contradictory' -- I dont think that its that simple!

C says to 'infer' ie the conclusion has to include the 'impossibility of a kind of occurrence. We never said that in the conclusion

we just said that the notion of prediction is self - contradictory

if something is self - contradict that does mean it is impossible for it to occur? maybe. But that seems like an unfair assumption to me

I chose (E) bad reading -- ie: missed that it said 'predicting any event' rather than 'predicting inventions'

But IMHO none are good answers. Please help!!

I was excited to read your question bc I had exactly the same one (ie why E better than A if they both make assumptions?) but I think you did a good job addressing why E's assumption is SMALL enough for you to choose, but not why it is small enough relative to As assumptions

I think A has three assumptions:

(i) although the experiments are given to be true, we don't know if that means it would be the case for most people

(ii) the experiment assumes /Q and more efficient and AC (A) only says /Q

(iii) AC A says 'try to use' which is far fetched - not ultimately it was easier, but that on their first try it was easier

Perhaps if (A) read 'some people who used /Q keyboards that are also more efficient than Q ultimately double their speed' -- I do think that is more likely to be true given the information in the stimulus

would that be considered more or less assumptions than AC (E) which is asking you to assume that computers are not as clunky as early typewriters. And also, you really brought in outside information (re mechanical engineering of typewriter) in explaining why its a REASONABLE assumption, which I thought is something we shouldn't do?

idk.. this is a hard Q and I'm not sure this suffices to answer the Q (which assumption is reasonable, which is not?)

in my opinion, A and E both have a problem

A) doesn't trigger that 'toxic to humans --> damaging to human health (which I guess you can assume, but there have been more obvious thing you assume and get wrong for on the LSAT so ...)

E) doesn't trigger a converted landfill - only a regular one - which is ridiculous, bc our argument is literally talking bout converting them

between the two A is less bad, but I still thing its not a perfect AC - any thoughts on this?

does being comfortable mean being successful? is that what wrong AC A is trading on? IE I assume that comf living = success and that therefore I have something like

3+ years <--> success

but really we have

success --> 3+ years (ie not a biconditional arrow)

@AudreyGilmour

I did the same thing and I'm wondering how to solve it if you had the same misunderstanding we did about true belief (ie not that the belief is true but that the person truly believes it) or if you do that then youre screwed and there is nothing you can do about it?

I think being tripped up about it being about whether or not the belief is true vs. if you are a true believer is hard here 

But maybe its bc C is grappling with if it's a true belief in regards to the cell phones 

And D is grappling with if its a true belief in regards to it helping people 

An we need the true belief to be in regards to the phenomenon (cell phones) nothing to do with if it will help people -that's a separate issue 

I think if you parse it that way you can see why D is wrong

@pearsongaw ya this is what I Thought