I fell into the TRAP! Whyyyyyyyyyyy!?!?!?

Not a fan of this question. INCREASED RATE OF POPULATION LOSS. If the poachers were there before the weapons testing started, and they returned after the weapons testing ended, how is that an increase? That's just resuming the prior rate of population loss. But camels going from "displaced" to walking on unexploded bombs - pretty safe to say that's an increase in the rate of population loss. The question stem doesn't mention "sustained population loss". Nope - not a fan of this one at all.

If you're struggling to understand why C is not the correct answer, this might help. The conclusion of the stimulus is: "However, when people put up nesting boxes to help the ducks breed, they actually undercut the ducks' reproductive efforts." Now, switch out the last sentence of the stimulus with answer choice C. Do you see how answer choice C supports the conclusion? If you were to ask, "Why do the nesting boxes undercut the duck's reproductive efforts?" answer choice C would answer that question. Answer choice C supports the conclusion, not the other way around. And the question stem clearly asks, "... most strongly support which one of the following?" The correct answer will be supported by the stimulus. Answer choice C is definitely a TRAP. The LSAT is timed, but don't let that pressure undermine the importance of understanding what the question stem is asking.

@nickanni171 LOVE IT!

@Oleynik LOL!

Completely understand that 20 minutes is a significant time commitment. Fortunately, there are timestamps for those who want to jump straight to the result. Fortunately, for those who want to understand how to navigate the noise to pinpoint the core flaw, building that conceptual understanding will require a significant time commitment. The ROI is it makes tackling problems of similar complexity much easier in the future. Thanks for including the timestamps!

General question about FLAW questions like this. I'm hoping to refine my approach to LR questions to ensure both accuracy and EFFICIENCY. For instance, if a FLAW stimuli uses "likely" and "unlikely", would you recommend focusing on causal relationship errors over conditional logic errors? Hoping to avoid common pitfalls that lead to analysis paralysis or running out of time.

The conditional logic error jumped out at me. I read the ACs, I couldn't connect them with confusing the sufficient and necessary. At that point, 1 minute and 35 seconds had passed. I avoided E out of fear of irrelevance - illogical fear in hindsight.

Do you have advice/suggestions on developing efficient methodology with FLAW questions? What's the best approach to identifying if the correct answer will be conditional or causal if both flaws exist in the argument? Appreciate you and this platform. It's really helping.

There's definitely an art to interpreting/translating these stimuli. For me, this became easy to see when I translated "would be upset" to "would care". From the PRINCIPLE: if consumers care, then label. From the APPLICATION: if consumers don't care, don't label.

OBVIOUS improper negation because it's confusing the sufficient and necessary conditions.

AC E translated: performs an improper negation.

Hope I'm not oversimplifying the process. The reasoning is about "avoiding heart disease". The conclusion is about "maintaining good health". Avoiding dairy for sure increases the probability of avoiding heart disease. But we are given zero evidence about ALL THE WAYS avoiding dairy affects the probability of maintaining good health.

When I "ugh" on these kinds of LSAT questions, I'm reminded of Lauryn Hill: it could all be so simple, but you'd rather make it hard. LOL!

I just want to say THANK YOU for these lessons. They are turning light bulbs on left and right.

Your client would have also had to cough up alimony in the event he cheated on his wife, got another woman pregnant, and that woman gave birth to his child.

The conclusion says: served its intended purpose. Well, the intended purpose is intended to be successful for "students most committed to being science majors..."

Answer choice D is an assumption about students most committed to being science majors. Answer choice A isn't. That and negating answer choice D proves it's the only NA answer choice.

Thank you so much! The Necessary Assumption lessons turned the light bulb on for me.

FCE then no MBW (1st)

responsible then under control (2nd)

FCE then no under control (3rd)

take the contrapositive of the 2nd condition:

no under control then no responsible

combine the 3rd condition with the contrapositive:

FCE then no responsible (4th)

We have:

FCE then no MBW (1st condition from above)

FCE then no responsible (4th)

condensing these two gives:

no responsible then no MBW (answer B)

When J.Y. drew the squiggly circle, I started laughing so hard. "I'm just going to do like this." LOL.

I mistakenly thought a "reason" is support/premise, not a hypothesis. I fell into the trap and picked D.

I struggle with arguments that have more than one conclusion. But this explanation really helped - thank you!

These lessons are very helpful.

Great explanation! Thank you!

A = maple

B = healthy no B = unhealthy

C = greater than 12" no C = less than 12"

D = no harm no D = harm

We know that if A and B and C, then D

Answer choice A is the contrapositive:

If no D, then no A or no B or no C

Answer choice D is saying:

A and no B and no C, then D which is not what the stimulus said.

Not a fan of this question. The stimulus clearly states the subjects are "volunteers". They aren't under duress. Conclusion: current drug testing procedures cannot be defended just because VOLUNTEERS are paid and know the risks. I don't understand how the premise can be about "under duress" when the stimulus is about subjects who are volunteering. You can't be under duress if you're volunteering. Knowing the risk doesn't translate into not being under duress. Just as being paid doesn't translate into not being under duress. But being a volunteer (which the subjects in these drug tests are) does translate into not being under duress. Appreciate any clarification.

I understand why E is the answer - it makes sense. What's not making sense to me is what makes C the wrong answer. Is it the words "most people" or is it the word "underestimate"? The stimulus says "...most individuals believe that they...." The word "believe" is not a quantifiable word - I can't ask you by how much. But the word "underestimate" is quantifiable - I can ask you by how much. The stimulus doesn't tell us anything that would support the word "underestimate" but we know most people believe. Any clarification is appreciated.

@HimajaReddy If (like me), you're struggling with why C couldn't be the correct answer, the last paragraph of the above explanation turns the lightbulb on. Per the stimulus, "...consumers shopping for automobiles...." Answer choice C isn't about consumers shopping for automobiles. The devil is in the details! LOL!

My diagram was the opposite direction. If FICTION, then ILLUSION. If ILLUSION, then POLITICAL STABILITY. Where fiction is portraying our interpretations of the constitution as those of the founding fathers. Where illusion is believing laws are based on long standing tradition and not the preferences of contemporary politicians. And in order to have political stability, we must have illusion (which must have fiction). So AC B says we won't have political stability without fiction and that's true because without fiction, we won't have illusion and without illusion, we won't have political stability. Not having political stability is the same as having political instability. All that being said - hilarious that this is just 1 of 25 questions to be answered within 35 minutes. LOL.

Great explanation. I'm getting hung up on what feels like double standards. I get why D is the answer. I'm stuck on why E couldn't be the answer as well. The AC says: both C and S left their stations before 9pm. The explanation says we can't assume that when C left the station, it was to pursue the prisoner. Ok, but we can assume that when S left the station, it was to pursue the prisoner? Nothing in the AC clarifies why either of them left the station so why can't we assume they both left to pursue a prisoner?