Student Question

Why is (E) correct, despite leaving out the part about the Third Period?

The first paragraph talks about how the book would explain how communism was able to generate African American organization.

(E) only talks about the Popular Front, which is less about communism attracting/generating African American organization, and more about the decline of African American organization.

Tutor Answer

E is correct because it captures the main point of the passage as opposed to the main point of the whole book. While you are correct that the book covers topic broader than the Popular Front period, the passage spends most of its time focusing in on this period only. Hence, it is not an issue that E similarly only focuses on the Popular Front.

Student Question

Why is (A) not supported by the first sentence of the passage?

Tutor Answer

A argues that the reason why medical ethics courses are deprioritized is because of the heavy load of technical coursework. However, the first sentence that you are pointing out here does not indicate a causal relationship between those two things. Rather the first sentence just identifies high volumes of technical work and maintaining empathy as 2 challenges that are not necessarily directly related to each other. The causal element in A is missing from the first sentence.

Student Question

Why does the passage say "paradoxically" in the first sentence of the last paragraph? Isn't this sentence a continuation of what was already mentioned in the previous paragraph?

Tutor Answer

The word paradox is not referring to anything in contrast with the earlier paragraph. Rather, it is being used to specifically contrast the two ideas in this sentence only: that Morrison is creating a sense of improvisation (which feels spontaneous and not constructed in any way at all) within a novel that is "carefully constructed." These two ideas (spontaneous vs constructed) seem contradictory but Morrison is able to meld them together in her novel. This, and this contrast only, is what the word "paradox" is referring to here!

Student Question

Does the "structuring principle" in the first paragraph refer to 'narrative' instead of 'plot, themes, and setting' mentioned in AC (A)?

Tutor Answer

Yes, the structuring principle in the first paragraph refers to "narrative", but very specifically to the type of jazz-inspired narrative used by Morrison as described here!

It is explicitly not just the more general ideas of jazz-inspired plot, themes, and settings as you pointed out is mentioned in A.

Student Question

At my level this is probably a really stupid question, but I had so much issue connecting C with the question because I thought the “lack of high ceilings and thick walls” means low ceilings and thick walls, not realizing that the AND applies to the thick walls as well. So when I read C talking about low ceilings and thin walls I just thought it was irrelevant. Therefore, in cases like this where its one quantifier followed by multiple subjects, should we always assume the quantifier applies to all subjects unless otherwise stated?

Tutor Answer

First, not a stupid question at all!

To analyze the grammar here, we can isolate the phrase between the two "that"s because this phrase explains what the builders found. This phrase is a clause (which by definition should have at least a subject and a verb. It should never have just a subject.)

The phrase then boils down to "houses lacked X and Y." The objects following "lacked" should always be direct objects being affected by the verb. If they are not, then this is not quite parallel structure/ grammatical. Instead, there would just be a random second subject here not connected to a verb.

You can think of it as similar to the phrase "they played soccer and basketball." Both soccer and basketball are direct objects of "played." It would not make sense at all for "basketball" to just be a completely different idea/ new subject (regardless of what came before this clause.) It might be helpful to really focus on the idea of "lacking" as verb here! I also recommend substituting in simpler topics into more complicated sentence structures to make better sense of them!

Also, for a refresher on grammar definitely do check out this lesson on modifiers as well as the ones that follow in this module!

Student Question

B trips me up in the sense that the idea of “net harm” comes to mind. Am I correct in dismissing this idea because the conclusion talks about negligible HARM, so benefits are irrelevant? With that, and my second question, what would a change be in this stimulus and conclusion that would render us taking into account the NET effect (harm and benefits), making B a contender?

Tutor Answer

Regarding your first question, B is not discussing whether the radiation itself has potential positive effects that are not being considered by the stimulus. Instead, it's discussing the positive things that may follow as result of getting the X-ray done: for example, dentists can see if you have any tooth cancers that could lead to serious health effects. All in all, you are correct that the conclusion is talking about a specific type of harm (and that harm is radiation-related harm) whereas B brings up an even broader idea of harm (the net effects of radiation vs. potential to reduce dental health risks by getting this procedure done.)

As for your second question, here is a potential stimulus that would allow B to be correct. Again, B refers to the idea of an overall net harm (but even broader than what I think you are pointing out here.)

The radiation absorbed by someone during an ordinary commercial airline flight is as dangerous as that received during a dental X-ray. There is no reason to get on a flight and harm yourself in this way. There is also no reason to get a dental X-ray for your health!

B works here because my conclusion is about overall health effects from getting an X-ray, and it fails to consider that overall health effects are not just limited to getting radiation-related harm.

Student Question

I am still confused on how E makes the argument most vulnerable to criticism. How does it do that exactly? I watched the video and am still unsure.

Tutor Answer

What E is doing (as many weakening answer choice do) is giving us an alternative reason for why this phenomenon must be happening (people following protocol getting sick more) other than what the conclusion is giving us as a reason (the protocol is just bad.) Essentially, we are saying that the reason that people who follow the recommendations are getting relatively MORE sick is for a reason OTHER than the recommendations being bad/ counterproductive.

And what is E's alternative to the reason the conclusion gives? E is saying that maybe the people who follow these protocols are the same ones who are just more likely to get sick. For example, people who eat meat a lot and have super weak immune systems are the ones who are following the recommendations (compared to people who would just not get sick at all being fine with not following the recommendations.)

So, this leads us to doubting the conclusion because, if it is true that people who are more likely to get sick are the ones that follow the recommendations, then those people would have maybe gotten even more sick without the recommendations! Maybe they went from 100% sickness to 50% sickness by following these protocols whereas the people who deviate are anyways at only 10% sickness (and that's why they don't care about following the recs.) This makes us think that the recommendations could be very much helpful!

Student Question

What is the difference between implying that the conclusion is false and undermining the conclusion?

Tutor Answer

I would argue that "implying the conclusion is false" is a potential outcome of undermining the conclusion. Essentially, when you undermine a conclusion, you cast doubt on whether it is true or not. It's like a spectrum: you can undermine a conclusion to the effect that it just seems less true or undermine it so strongly that it seems like it is false!

Essentially, an answer choice that implies the conclusion is false by adding in some extra info is an answer choice that is doing a great job at undermining the conclusion.

Student Question

How come C is wrong? The stimulus does say that the research communities engage in the long testing process, but it doesn’t say that they’re responsible for it. Is that the reason why?

Tutor Answer

Let's first take a look at what C is actually saying.

If C merely said that these communities were responsible for testing, then it could potentially be right as we know they do engage in that process. However, C says more than that.

It calls this long testing process "excessively long" and tries to pin the blame for said length on the research communities. However, the stimulus gives us no reason to infer that this process is too long. It could be true that the process is long and for good reason (and so, not "excessive"!)

Also, even if this testing process was too long, we have no reason to think it is the research communities' fault vs the FDA's fault. Maybe the FDA has lots of rules about the testing phase that makes the process long! We simply have no reason to believe that the process, even if it was too long, is the researchers "fault" vs the FDA's!

Student Question

I would like the better understand what it means to attack the premise versus support. Could you help me structure the below answer choice in a way it better attacks the support, as opposed to the premise?In many surveys, people say that they would prefer a high-wage job to an otherwise identical job with lower wages.

Tutor Answer

You're correct that we should never attack premises! What does that actually mean? We should never be contesting whether a given premise is actually true or not. For example, if we have a premise that says "the sky is blue," then we should not argue against this with a statement like "no, the sky is green."

Now, what we can do is attack the support that this premise provides to the conclusion. Essentially, we are trying to think of reasons why the premise does not actually support the conclusion in the way the argument suggests. Let's take a look at what I mean with your example.

First, let's add a conclusion to your example to make it as follows (we need the premise to support some claim):

Premise: In many surveys, people say that they would prefer a high-wage job to an otherwise identical job with lower wages.

Conclusion: Employers should focus on making jobs with the highest wage as possible to attract applicants.

What we do NOT want to do is attack the premise and call it false by saying these surveys actually does not show this claim about wage preferences. What we DO want to do is undermine the relationship of support that this premise gives the conclusion by introducing new information (that makes us doubt the validity of the conclusion.)

For example, we could claim that people in the survey also said that they deeply care about non-wage benefits like healthcare coverage and would prefer getting such benefits over just a high wage.

By adding this information, we are not attacking the premise but just the support structure by adding in information that makes it less likely to trust the conclusion, that employers should just focus on high wages (because now it seems like they should also consider having good benefits, not JUST high wages.)

Student Question

I’m not sure why D is incorrect and A is correct, because for me, they were both on the could be true/could be false scale. Could you please provide tips?

Tutor Answer

First, let's take a look at A. This is supported in the phrase "Such substances undoubtedly first appeared, and new ones continue to appear, as the result of genetic mutations in individual plants." "New ones" here refers to secondary substances, and we are told that these new ones are a consequence of genetic mutations. It is, then, very well supported that these mutations are likely more recent if they're resulting effect (new substances) is also more recent/ "new."

Now, let's take a look at why D is NOT supported. As you said, this could be true or false. But like we did with A, we have no support from the passage that swings the pendulum towards true. We ONLY have evidence that some plants have MORE than one secondary substance. Hence, this answer has 0 support from the passage.

Overall, the reason A is correct is because the evidence we identified above pushes it towards the "true" side of the spectrum!

When you come across a dilemma like this, I would recommend imagining your answers on a spectrum. Ask yourself which answer choice is pushed to the "true" end of this spectrum by the passage (correct answer!) vs which answer choice needs a lot of outside assumptions to get there (wrong answer)! Also, keep in mind, that the correct answer choice does not HAVE to be true, just supported enough to likely be true.

Student Question

One thing I am confused about is that if answer choice D were valid (if the government should have the power to confiscate an individual's personal correspondence to use as evidence against the individual in a criminal trial), wouldn’t that also trigger governments not being allowed to use personal diares, if the premise that a diary is a type of conversation is accepted?

Tutor Answer

Great question! I would argue that there is a distinction here because the premises specify "conversation with oneself," and it emphasizes that communications with oneself should be kept private so this needs to be captured by the answer choice. By definition, correspondence is "communication by exchanging letters, emails, or other messages." What's described in the stimulus would miss the element of exchange with another person that is needed for D to be valid. Essentially, I think that internal/silent/one-person communication does not meet the definition of correspondence.

Student Question

I’m confused about this my thought process was couldn’t it be that some of the students found it fascinating although didn’t see it from the beginning I’m just confused to how D is the correct answer when it says no one who is O’Brien

Tutor Answer

You're exactly right that the flaw in this argument is that some of this professor's students who did NOT see it from the start still found it fascinating. This is exactly what D is saying too!

First, Professor O'Brien is the professor who is arguing this stimulus (his name is at the start of the stimulus and in the question stem.) If we consider D, that none of his students who were there from the start found it fascinating then that must mean that some of the students who were late were the ones who found it fascinating. This must be true for the premise, that some of his students did find it fascinating, to also follow. Now that is exactly what you pointed our as well.

And just as a reminder, when we are finding flaws, we do NOT want to negate any premises in any way, but we are trying to find something that (if true) would undermine the stimulus. If D is true, then the conclusion would not follow as it would be true that late students of this professor found it fascinating!

Student Question

Why is D the right answer? The passage says “There is evidence that this along with lessons printed in the local newspaper has had success at revitalizing native languages in some communities.” Doesn’t it indicate the author approves of grammar lessons?

Tutor Answer

D is the right answer because, in the question stem, we are specifically asked about the "kind of native language radio programming" the author advocates for. Though the author might advocates for such lessons in the newspaper, they do NOT advocate for it on the radio. In fact, the author considers such lessons "unengaging and distant" and a "contrast" to effective programming. Hence, in terms of radio programming specifically, we have evidence that the author does not advocate for radio-based grammar lessons!

Student Question

Could you please explain D?

Tutor Answer

Let's first break down the stimulus:

• public buses are subsidized by city tax revenue

• some public bus riders/beneficiaries are non-city people (who work in city)

• some councilors: city taxes should be used mainly to benefit city people who pay them--> so, raise bus fare so tax rev is not used

Now, let's take a look at the question stem: we need to find something that either does not affect the argument OR strengthens it (e.g. makes us more inclined to believe that fares should be raised.)

D tells us that city voters do not want to increase local taxes. Does the councilors' argument rely at ALL on what the voters want? Nope! The councilors base their argument upon the idea of who benefits vs pays for the taxes. The argument is not at all based on what voters (or even the taxpayers specifically) want to happen. Hence, this has absolutely no effect on our conclusion/ the argument. So, D is the right answer because, by not affecting the strength of the argument, is does not weaken the argument.

Student Question

How do we know that the "some sugar substitutes" in AC(C) is referring to the actual sugar substitutes used in the study mentioned in the stimulus?

Why isn't knowing this required for (C) to weaken?

Tutor Answer

The word "some" just means "more than 1." So, AC (C) is just referring to the existence of more than 1 sugar substitute among all of the sugar substitutes that exacerbates such activity. It is not referring to a few specific types of sugar substitutes.

Also, even if we didn't know this for sure, this would still be the right answer! All a weaken answer does is cast doubt on the truth of the conclusion/ on the link between the premises and the conclusion. Even if we did not know whether C was specifically referring to the sugar substitutes used here, the existence of certain sugar substitutes existing that act in this manner would still undermine the truth of the conclusion because the ones in the study could be the ones that behave as such. Ultimately, it still makes us question whether the sugar subs being compared to in the study are truly the right control (or also a hyper-action inducing substance.)

Student Question

Can you explain why B is wrong? If political factions are not willing to overlook their differences to back policies that are conducive to economic expansion, wouldn’t that hurt the argument? By knowing that they are willing to sometimes overlook their differences it helps the argument that economic expansion are feasible? Is B wrong because the argument is about what should be done and not if people going to agree with the policy or if the policy is feasible? We only want to focus on connecting economic expansion and how it’s going to help with class divisions?

Tutor Answer

We are saying what democracies SHOULD do, not what they CAN do. For example, I could claim that I should eat more vegetables but that does not mean that I can or will do so. These are distinct ideas.

Your explanation for B hinges on supporting the statement that economic expansion (to strengthen a democracy) is feasible whereas the argument seeks to support the statement that democracies should support economic expansion policies. Again, the conclusion does not hinge at all upon what is actually likely/possible in a democracy.

I believe you do get at this reasoning in the latter part of your question! You're right to say that the argument is about what should be done, not about feasibility. And yes, we should instead be focusing on linking the missing gap between how these policies will reduce class divisions.

Student Question

Why are C and D incorrect?

Tutor Answer

Let's take a look at C first, specifically the part that says "argues that they are not really distinct from one another." In paragraph 2, the author NEVER suggests that several hypotheses are similar to each other. Rather, they just introduce these hypotheses as potential explanations.

As for D, this too is not an accurate description! In paragraph 2, the author makes absolutely no counterargument at all. Instead, the focus of paragraph 2 is on advocating for a better explanatory hypothesis (not against having a hypothesis in general.) This new theory is not addressed at all in answer choice D despite being the focus of paragraph 2.

Student Question

I need help understanding what “in principle” means in AC C please

Tutor Answer

"In principle" means something is theoretically/hypothetically possible, while "in practice" means how it actually works in reality.

So, C is incorrect because, hypothetically (in principle or in theory) computers should be able to solve these issues. However, when we actually put that theory into practice and try to handle these situations, computers are unable to actually follow through because they currently lack the knowledge/ tools.

Student Question

The stimulus says “older adults control more disposable income than the rest of the population combined.” So, wouldn’t the correct answer choice have to say “more than 50%” rather than 50% or more because the stimulus already established that it was more than half?

Tutor Answer

Before we dive deeper into this example, take a look at this hypothetical argument:

Premise: Lemons are light yellow fruits.

Conclusion: I hate lemons.

To make the conclusion follow, I could choose any of the following sufficient assumptions:

1) I hate light yellow fruits

2) I hate yellow fruits

3) I hate all fruits

It's totally fine that the stimulus already zero-ed in on lemons being a specific type of fruit, we are allowed to have sufficient assumptions that include more in their scope than the specific premises we were given.

What is important in this question is not whether the scopes perfectly line up, but whether or not the scope of the sufficient assumption is large enough to be "triggered" by the premises and allow the conclusion to follow. In this case, all of these sufficient assumptions are triggered by all 3 of our premises to arrive at the same correct conclusion.

Similarly, in the original question, the scope is inclusive enough even though it does not perfectly match the "more than 50%" established by the stimulus because that characteristic is included in "50% or more!" So, it still works as a sufficient assumption that guarantees the conclusion! E would also work if you tweaked it to just be more than 50%.

Student Question

What is the difference between "root" and "cause"?

Tutor Answer

I'd argue that there is not much of a difference between these two terms! If anything "root" just suggests a specific type of cause: one that is central, primary, or the main reason behind some effect. In fact, "root" can often be understood as short for "root cause."

Student Question

Can you explain the answer to this question in more lay terms? I’m having trouble figuring out how to parse through the answers with a time crunch and also dissect the really wordy answer choices. Can you give me some strategies to use when answering questions like this to at the very least eliminate the easiest wrong answers and then go from there?

Tutor Answer

Let's first break down the stimulus into simpler terms:

Principle: If something contains ingredients that most customers would be upset about, then those ingredients should be labelled. (For example, if customers would be upset to know there is corn in a cereal, the cereal should list "corn" on its ingredients list.)

Application: Most customers would NOT be upset about GEIs in Crackly Crisps. So GEIs do not need to be on the label on Crackly Crisps.

Now, what is the flaw here? There could be a million other reasons why Crisps should have the GEI label! Just because this specific reason does not exist here (that it should happen because customers would care), that does not mean other reasons do not exist for the product needing a GEI label. For example, what if there is a law that requires all foods with GEs to be labelled as such? Even though the customers do not care, the product should still be labelled as such.

This is exactly what E gets at! My biggest piece of advice here is to divide up the answer choice into smaller parts and match them to the part of the stimulus they are referring to. When you check each portion of the answer choice, you can quickly eliminate answers as soon as you realize they do not accurately describe the argument. After you find one or more answer choices that accurately reflect the argument, then you can ask yourself: is this actually a flaw?

Let's do this with E: "confuses a claim that under certain conditions a certain action should be taken with a claim that the action need not be taken in the absence of those conditions."

1) "a claim that under certain conditions a certain action should be taken": this refers to the idea that if customers care, a product should be labelled. That is indeed in the argument.

2) "a claim that the action need not be taken in the absence of those conditions". this refers to the idea that if customers do not care, a product should NOT be labelled. This also accurately describes the argument.

So, putting it all together, E says that the argument confuses these two ideas: that labelling being necessary when customers care also implies that labelling is not necessary when customers do not care. That is an accurate description of the stimulus, AND is a flaw as we analyzed earlier.

Student Question

For C, the idea is that the argument fails to evaluate the other stages of puppyhood, which if they did, then maybe their conclusion wouldn’t hold. Based on this logic, for flaw questions, is a good way to see if it is a problem for the argument is to ask yourself what would happen to the premises leading to the conclusion from the answer?

Tutor Answer

I think that's a great way to approach a descriptive weakening question like this one, to ask yourself "does the conclusion still follow as strongly if we know that [answer choice]?" If the answer is yes, then that answer choice is not undermining the link between the premises and the conclusion (and hence, is not the correct AC.)

In this case, we can answer this hypothetical question with "No" if it is true that later neutering could potentially lead to even worse arthritis. So, it's a great weakening answer choice!

Student Question

I shied away from A because I thought I had to make the assumption that the plants can support both mites at the same time for it to be true. I.e., the answer was saying there is an option for the plant to support either C mites or T mites without the other being present without significant damage, which we know isn’t true. How do I avoid thinking this way?

Tutor Answer

Your original interpretation of this answer choice is fine, that the plant can support both mites at the same time! And our evidence for this can be found in the text: "Typhlodromus mites usually invade the strawberry fields during the second year, rapidly subdue the cyclamen mite populations, and keep them from reaching significantly damaging levels." In this instance, the plant is supporting both mite populations (just at a limited population level of the cyclamen mite.)

I do agree that the wording of A could also lend itself to being interpreted as the plant can support each specie (at separate times) without damage. This is also supported! The nuance here is that the answer choice does not clarify to what extent the mite populations would be, and the passage does support the idea that there is a population level of cyclamen mites that is NOT damaging to the plant (we know that it is not damaging until their second year of invasion.)

All in all, the takeaway here does not need to be about prioritizing one interpretation of A over the other because both interpretations are correct! However, I would recommend the initial interpretation as the word "both" is used in A in a way that seems to imply simultaneous existence. If the LSAT did not intend this meaning, then there would be no reason to include that word (and every word on the test is purposefully included!)

I want to make sure I clarify that A is still a rational inference to make. It is very well supported by the premises because A being true would allow the first two facts to seamlessly get us to the conclusion that this bacteria can thrive forever in a dense colony. Hence, that is why it is the right answer choice.

Overall, it is the right answer because it is likely true based on the information we have BUT it is not a necessary assumption because there could be some alternative concept that still allows the premises and conclusion to follow. So, it is LIKELY true but it is not 100% true. This is the difference between a necessary assumption and MSS question!