Modern-Day Example

Debating the existence of UAPs is increasingly becoming mainstream. Distinguishing between general public acceptance of the existence of UAPs versus satisfying all skeptics seems reasonable enough. The general public may be satisfied with video evidence endorsed by mainstream media outlets as well as congressional testimony from military + intelligence whistleblowers (both of which have already happened); alternatively, skeptics may demand peer-reviewed rigorous analysis of said evidence to ensure it’s not fabricated and extensive government auditing to uncover the veracity of whistleblower claims. However, it’s also worth noting that acknowledging the existence of UAPs requires a much lower standard of proof than demonstrating that aliens exist. For the former, one only needs to show that there are unknown aerial phenomena, whatever they may be. For the latter, both the general public and hardcore skeptics would demand definitive proof (show us the bodies!) as well as an official statement from the President addressing the Nation before finally accepting that aliens are real. Even then, it’s possible some people may still refuse to believe given their priors.

The logical negation of 'Some Democrats are Presidents' is 'No Democrats are Presidents' since 'some' means 'at least one' and the logical negation of >=1 is 0. It's easier for me to think of the binary cut this way.

Disney is air tight: you have two options, it can’t be one, therefore it is the other.

Tiger requires a slight leap in logic to link aggression/causing serious injury to suitability as a pet. Maybe someone values that in a pet for self-defense purposes. A Necessary Assumption AC for this would be something like, ‘A lack of aggression is required for mammals to be kept as pets’ or something like that

Trash is pure speculation.

TIGER: It is not the case that every person seen reading is actually reading - some people just like to pretend. After all, Kendall Jenner has a paid book consultant who stages books in her insta pics to make her seem more sophisticated and intelligent.

DISNEY: At Park City, there are two ways down the snow-covered mountain: snowboarding (shredding) or skiing (carving). Arden was seen going down the mountain without skis on; therefore, she was shreddin’.

TRASH: Her report was totally plagiarized. I know for a fact she didn’t start it until the night before it was due, and I saw her copy-and-pasting a lot of content… plus ChatGPT says it’s like 83% plagiarized soo

bruh you just opened my mind to the possibility of multidimensional support... I just went into a deep dive on n-dimensional fuzzy logic (wayyyy out of scope for the LSAT lol) - but such logic is totally being used today for computational theory and neural networks, cool

CONCLUSION: This striking pattern surely reflects a specific preference on the part of many Japanese collectors for certain aesthetic attributes they found in 19th century Impressionist paintings.

PREMISE: Japanese collectors were very active in the market for European art, especially as purchasers of 19th century Impressionist paintings.

ASSUMPTION: Presuming that Japanese collectors are purchasing said Impressionist paintings for their aesthetic attributes. But why not for their popularity? As a status symbol? Tax write-off purposes?

A) popularity != aesthetics; also this is just random historical context

B) Great, maybe this lets people buy more artwork, but what does this have to do with the argument?

C) Correct. ‘Certain techniques and visual effects’ == aesthetics, and by saying said techniques were ‘highly esteemed’ links this aesthetic quality back to the purchasing preferences of Japanese art collectors.

D) Prices indicate demand, but not the underlying reason for that demand. Clearly the artwork was valuable, but what made Japanese art collectors buy them?

E) We are looking for the reason why Japanese art collectors collect 19th century Impressionist paintings, not the reason why art collectors everywhere collect Japanese artwork.

Technically, the stimulus doesn’t specify whether the planes have to actually be airborne: it leaves open the possibility that this system accounts for planes on runways as well. Due to my unhealthy obsession with reading about plane crashes, though, I know that TCAS primarily operates for mid-air collisions. Even though B is technically true in today’s world (especially in 2024), it has no bearing on the argument. Whether a collision is more likely on the ground or in the air is not relevant to determining whether passengers are safer with or without the system, which primarily operates in the air.

Don’t overthink - you have to take the answer choices at face value and you can’t entertain unsubstantiated assumptions. When I read B about reporting to managers and D about filing lawsuits, I immediately thought of the real-world implications of those actions and how maybe workers could be dissuaded due to retaliation from upper management or something… but that invites too many tenuous assumptions that are only grasping at straws. Take the answer choices at face value and do not go down the slippery slope of potential, yet unspecified, assumptions.

George Santos approves this message

Stared at this question for hours earlier, could not make sense of it, just came back from a holiday party buzzed and everything makes sense now. Love that for me. Sounds like I need to pregame the LSAT to curb the overthinking

At first look D seemed too broad to be the correct answer (it doesn't even mention alcohol). But after Process of Elimination, it ends up being the most supported.

C also says “the largest part of the fee a customer pays”, the passage didn’t mention how much the customer paid, rather the passage said “most of the price consists of royalties the store pays”. So if it said store instead of customer, would C be correct?

#help (Added by Admin)

I thought the same. I am curious, how would you undo the shrinkage of a hot-water wash? To the best of my knowledge there is no way, and I thought this was a common sense assumption we were supposed to make.

I now hear JY's voice in my head when I go through each question lol

I hesitated with AC C because I thought of the scenario where rats could have lathyrism but just aren't symptomatic, so we just don't know about susceptibility still. After eliminating all the other answer choices, I returned to C and just went with it, even though it implies that susceptibility requires the expression of symptoms.

it's weird to think of an actual outcome as a by-product of an action, but ends are strictly defined as the INTENDED outcome only, not actual. I got tripped up there.

this really cleared it up for me, thank you. I didn't realize that 'Even if it were possible to mine the Moon for helium-3' implies that current mining of the Moon isn't possible at the moment. After doing some grammar research beyond the curriculum, I found out that 'if it were' is in the subjunctive mood, which denotes a hypothetical, unlikely situation. It's like saying 'If I were a billionaire, I wouldn't be studying for the LSAT currently.' 'If I were a billionaire' indicates that I am currently not a billionaire but wish to be one (although that is very unlikely lol), just like saying 'if it were possible to mine the Moon for helium-3' indicates that it is not currently very likely to be possible, but who knows?

Of course, the feasibility of mining is tangent to the central part of the arg you laid forth, which is that using the strategy of mining to solve the world's energy problems is not possible.