My issue with this questios and others are I don't want to make the immediate assumption that "living by moral standards" and being good/a better person are the same.

I agree that they are similar but I am hesitant to make that assumption because I feel like that's a way a test maker could trap me.

@MateoAgudelo What helped me do questions like this quicker is trying to note what answer has the parts we need.

1. A condition.

2. Something that (in theory triggers) the condition

3. Realizing that it doesn't actually have the necessary condition (the sculpture doesn't evoke intense feelings).

4. THIS IS THE BIG ONE, an explanation that conditional is wrong OR it doesn't trigger the lawgic (its not art).

1. let me immediately elimnate D and B since they don't have the or condition. 1. Lets you eliminate E because I don't view it as a condition. and then you can see that A is not saying that the bilology lab is not a class (the sufficient condition), so it should be C.

I just started approaching these this way to at least avoid reading all the answers.

@keatricerobertson487 I did this as well. But im wondering if this could be problematic in the future?

I really don't see the issue if we only care about Scott.

For questions like this, my worry is how much time it takes to do these because in a way we are reading 5 stimuli!

I did think B was correct but there may have been a better answer so i had to read through the other options.

What advice do people have for finding ways to quickly eliminate answers so I can at least save some time on that.

When I see the question type is about the or weakening argument or anything that undermines the stimulus, and I see a conditional statement of some sort, should this set off a light bulb that the flaw will be conditional?

Can someone confirm if my understanding is accurate.

He fishing guide says “the most populp is fish adapted the most”.

The study says the catfish is the most populous fish.

But we can’t infer what the guide believes is the most populated fish because there is too much uncertainty.

We never said that they read the study or what they believe is the most populous fish?

I read this as unlike the stimulus, this does say NO GOVENMENTS can regulate employment and labor closely. And since the flaw with is that the subset of novels shortcomings isn't representative of the whole, then the fact no government can do this is fair sample to make the claim that non can improve the economy.

I see the point that just because you can't control inflation and unemployment that doesn't mean you can't improve a nations economy.

I feel like this was a trap I feel for so any advice on avoiding it?

What interests me here is that it seems like we are willing to go back and reread the stimulus, even though we do understand it.

We just can't anticipate where it's going. Is this an approach I should always follow or are there answers types where we shouldn't waste time rereading, even if we don't know where it is going?

What is the best way to study question formatting. I feel the sooner I can recognize that this is a premise, conclusion, counter premise example, or other structures, the more efficiently I can move through the problem.

But right now all i can think to do is maybe copy the stimulus, annotate it, and just keep it as a reference, but to me this feels ineffective.

I think this will be answered in later sections, but I have seen the word "generalization" appear a lot on potential LSAT answers like this. Maybe someone could let me know is there is something specific they mean when they mention this?

But if I say that not all dogs are friendly, can we infer, or can we deny, that no dogs are friendly? It doesn't half to be the case but its not outside the realm of possibility here.

I know we can infer that when we use the quantifier many, it implies some. But we can not infer the opposite. If some dogs are pets, we can't infer that many dogs are pets can we?

For Q5, can you make the whole thing a conjunction?

First, it becomes:

knowledge is element of a fact AND /(doesn't believe it exists) -> aware if existence -> established.

Then you can technically add another conjunction:

knowledge is element of a fact AND /(doesn't believe it exists) AND aware of its existence - > established

Maybe this is too much work, but for me it kinda makes it simpler that this is just 1 big conjunction.

Q4 I read the rule as if you have 10 + years of experience then you are supported and the exception if you have more than 50 animals.

Is there an issue with that?

Does it make sense to focus or use one of the three frameworks that makes the most sense intuitively to you or could there be instances where say thinking about the exception as a conditional statement instead of kicking it up is better?

I initially didn't make the connection that if McGuiness wins then someone less qualified won't win. For me it was technically too strong to say something like if MCG doesn't win then Yerxes will win.

To help me bridge the gap, are we saying. "We don't know that Xernes won't win and thus someone less qualified won't win"?

How do contrapositives work with these examples? My lawgic tells me that when we do the contrapositive, we can effectively change the or to an and?

For example

Plan Succeeds-> (Jedi Failed or Amidala Failed)

would become...

(Jedi and Amidala Succeeds) -> Plan fails

Are there caveats to this?

I wanted to check on the explanation. When it says that in 1990, 10 years ago, sunscreen protected against UV-B but not UV-A but now in 2000 we are protected against UV-A and UV-B, isn't that an weak assumption? I understand the logic and phrasing implies that, but we don't know for certain the in the year 2000, today, that sunscreen now protects against UV-A?