It is important to notice that the stimulus is saying smoking in bed is the main cause, but it is not stating that it is the only cause. Maybe other causes that even though happen less are deadlier than the main cause which is smoking in bed. With this in mind, ACs A and C are out.

I think the argument would have been better if it was saying:

In each group, most of the volunteers said that they preferred sparkle cola to the competing cola tasted.

Even with that, you should be giving Sparkle Cola with the same competing Cola to each group so that you can conclude that most of the volunteers preferred Sparkle Cola. If you give each group a different competing Cola, the responses would be different, too.

It is an easy question only if you notice the jump from the premise caused no great suffering to concluding no suffering.

I missed to see that :(

This whole time, I thought the loss of demand refers to consumers' demand. But the sentence says " loss of demand for these genetically altered crops..." . Consumers are the end users of the products, not using the actual crops.

I thought that in the analogus case of cars, we are still talking about the amount of pollution emissions of cars. The analogy is in fact power plants and their pollution emission and cars and their speed.

Bravo LSAT writers 👏

Typo in AC B:

great dramatic novel --> /sci-fi

sci-fi --> /great dramatic novel

I think the flaw in this question is hidden in the very last part " ....than paper or manure alone". We know that the mixture is better than paper alone, but does the stimulus provide any support if the mixture is better than manure alone?

In other words, if manure is that good, did you try to use it alone to see how effective it is before mixing it with paper?

If it is, why bother to mix it with paper? Why not use it alone?

Other ways of rephrasing the AC:

• The argument fails to consider that manure alone could be as effective as the mixture of paper and manure

• The argument ignores the possibility that manure alone could be more effective than the mixture of paper and manure.

@JEK23A You're welcome :)

What, prerequisite means necessary?

@SavanahHoffstein Thanks! That is right, I think I sat on the this question for too long that I missed to read the word " little".

Can someone please tell me how we Contrapose B?

If a hypothesis goes against tradition, one should not accept the hypothesis without overwhelming evidence.

AC A could also be tagged as Main point/Main conclusion for this stimulus because that is what it is trying to say.

Not both means:

max 1

min 0

Gotta remember that.

Just to confirm, when negate an AC like D to see if it is required for the argument, we only negate the first part of the sentence. Am I right?

The chemistry department's funding for basic science research is not likely to increase if its funding from sources other than profit-driven institutions does not increase.

How did we go from only if they knew about the danger beforehand and negligently failed to eliminate it

to

had chance to fix beforehand?

Such a confusing stimulus!

Premise: The threat of harsh punishment for a transgression usually decreases one's tendency to feel guilt or shame for committing that transgression

Harsh punishment ---- less shame

Premise: the tendency to feel guilt or shame for committing a transgression reduces a person's tendency to commit transgressions.

more shame --- less transgression

less shame ---- more transgression

Conclusion:

increasing the severity of the legal penalties for transgressions may amplify people's tendency to ignore the welfare of others.

The harsher the punishment --- the more ignoring welfare of others

We know our subject matter is Transgression(T).

On the first premise, it is stated that because of harsh punishment, one feel less shame.

The second premise is basically saying that the more shame your feel, the less you are likely to commit T, which means the less shame you feel, the more you are likely to commit T.

From these two premises, we can conclude that if the punishment is harsher, it would make one more likely to commit T .

But conclusion brings a new concept of " ignoring the welfare of others"

if the punishment is harsher, it would make one more likely to ignore the welfare of others.

T must also mean at least some actions that involve ignoring the welfare of others or else the conclusion does not follow.

how can we infer that "Some party members are speakers at the convention." ?

When a consumer is choosing a home appliance, that consumer should choose the least powerful product that meets his or her needs.

I did not choose AC E because of the phrase the least powerful. I thought it was a trap. However, I see why it is correct. We are comparing two air conditioning units: Sno-Queen and FreezAll.

Which one is the most powerful?

Sno-Queen

Which one is the least powerful (between the two)?

FreezAll

There might other ones that are even less powerful than FreezAll, but it does not matter. We are comparing Sno-Queen vs. FreezAll NOT all the other units.

Rox:

Do not buy new ivory.

New and old ivory market are independent. One does not affect the other.

Sal:

Do not buy any ivory at all.

New and old ivory market are dependant.

A- Rox: ? Sal: ?

B- CORRECT

Sal ✅ Rox❌

C- Maybe both agrees

D- Maybe both agrees

E- Rox✅ Sal ✅

I got this question right, but I am still confused what the role of the conclusion in the stimulus is:

The tendency toward overspecialization in the study of artifacts is unfortunate.

Does it help with anything? I found it irrelevant and not being supported by the premises.

The trick in this question is the word " mistakenly" in the first sentence:

Many artists mistakenly think that models need be taken only from outside the psyche.

That sentence could have been separated into two sentences like many examples of MP/MC questions that we've seen so far. How? by removing the word mistakenly from the first sentence and adding it after:

Many artists mistakenly think that models need be taken only from outside the psyche. They are, however, mistaken.

This and the original sentence are saying the same thing except that it is harder to identify and interpret the MC from the original one.

@jvrodrigues Thank you so much! I never thought about having one to classify the mistakes and create rules for future questions. It totally makes sense because it is not only about learning, but also applying it.

Can we still diagram AC D as below?

consumer confidence or /consumber skepticism --> /eco growth

Studies have found that nightmare-prone children are especially likely to suffer from nightmares as adults.

The way I interpreted this part of stimulus is that studies have found that nighmare-prone children are especially likely to suffer from nightmares same as adults.

Is this a correct interpretation?