I really appreciated the written explanation for this question. The "provided that" is exactly why I got this question wrong. I diagrammed "appreciate -> reflect" instead of "reflect -> appreciate."
Should have read it as "you will appreciate these differences if you (provided that) reflect on your own civilization."
Hung up on this one - I don't like the assumption in B that those in the former group will be interacting with those in the latter group. What if the avoiders only interact with avoiders?
I picked A, and I do now understand that it is unsupported, because you don't know when they'd be willing to speak.
Is A wrong just because it requires a greater assumption than B?
When doing blind review, should I hover over the pink circle on the question (thus indicating if I got it wrong, took too long on it, changed my answer multiple times, etc.) or not? Particularly, I'm not sure if it is harmful to do BR already knowing that I got that question wrong.
Thanks :)
The stimulus refers to the GREATEST # of lamps being assoc. w/ Magdalenian culture.
E: the fact there were more KINDS of lamps is irrelevant. There could be many types of lamps, but few of them.
Thus, this does not help explain why there is a greater # of lamps associated w/ Magdalenian culture.
Why the others help explain the skew:
A - if an artifact cannot be ID'd (as a lamp), it cannot count against the Magdalenian culture/tip the scales
B - If more Mag. sites, more artifacts.
C - Being efficient doesn't mean you make more of them, it just means you can make them quicker, with less materials, etc.
D - if fire pits were more common, likely a lesser need for lamps
This was very tricky for me. I was able to identify that C was logically inconsistent; it went directly against the argument's conclusion. However, given the stimulus, I could not identify how/why AC's A, B, and E were logically consistent with the columnist's conclusion, and thus I couldn't eliminate them.
Looking at the brief explanation under each answer choice, each explanation starts with, "This is logically consistent with the conclusion. It does not conflict..."
Is this saying that, just because it does not conflict, it is then consistent with [the conclusion]? That makes no sense to me. Going to watch the video now to see if it shares any extra details, but I had yet to come across a question like this.
My question: Is it safe to assume that, just because an AC doesn't conflict with the stimulus' conclusion, it is logically consistent with it?
This seems contradictory to other methods we have been taught.
Update: just saw Mridula's response below. An AC can be irrelevant and still consistent. The important part is that it doesn't go against anything in the stimulus.
@Stas1973 It's been fun going through the curriculum and now practice, seeing we're at about the same pace. I appreciate your notes, especially this one! Thanks.
Curriculum finished! Woo! Currently, plan is to do practice blocks/pre-exam block up until June 5th LSAT. Any advice on tweaking (optimizing) my plan? Something you've found particularly helpful in the month leading up to the LSAT?
Context: I've taken 6 PrepTests total. Four of them in August (two timed, two untimed), and two in the past couple months (untimed) to check progression.
Cold turkey timed score in August (i.e., no studying): 147, 155 later that same month, with some studying. Most recent untimed tests have been 161, but have gotten 163 and 164.
Goal score for now is 165. Planning to take it in August, too. I worry about not having taken many timed tests, but I would think comprehension is king.
Thank yoooouuuuuuu :)
You should update the opening sentence. This is not the last passage style, comparative is.
Answer depends on connecting two parts of the passage:
P1: "Glass does not have a precise freezing point; rather, it has what is known as a glass transition temperature, typically a range of a few hundred degrees Celsius."
P2: "that for glass to have more than a negligible ability to flow, it would have to be heated to at least 350 degrees Celsius."
C: One can assume, then, that the upper extreme "is well above 350 degrees Celsius," since the P1 quote says the range is a few hundred degrees, and the bottom of the range is 350 degrees Celsius.
A - eliminated because doesn't necessarily actively support any theory.
B - not relevant
C - not relevant
D - this sentence extends curiosity, thus would be a reason why scientists might want to study LHB
E - little tricky given the prior sentence. eliminated because D was stronger. E not entirely convincing.
In the explanation for AC D, it states, "The prevalence of plagiarism is identified for only one population: undergraduates."
This is incorrect, yes? The stimulus also references plagiarism in medical and business schools. Presumably, at least the medical school would not be undergraduate. Moreover, by their being referenced separately, I would assume they are not included in the undergraduate umbrella.
MacNeil thinks he cannot afford a single work because the collection as a whole is among the most valuable. He is mistaking a characteristic of the whole as a characteristic of a part. Individually, the works might be quite cheap, but as a whole, they form something more valuable.
Searched for AC with whole:part flaw. C.
@MichaelWright Heyoooo!