Student Question

Regarding AC D if the argument said that this tea causes one to get kidney damage would AC D then be right? ALso if it said this tea causes a increased/heightened risk of kidney damage would D again be right. The reason i learned from this explanation why this AC was wrong was because it said “can cause increased risk of damage” which is not the same as developing the damage as well as thinking that risk does not mean developing damage, just that you have a higher chance of susceptibility. So then I removed the word “can” and instead put the word causes. I feel like for the first scenario would be right but not second because it again has the word risk instead of getting the damage. Please tell me your thoughts.

Tutor Response

In both of the scenarios you gave, I would still say that (D) doesn't weaken the argument. This goes back to a key concept behind the idea of "causal logic": just because something doesn't cause an effect all the time—or even most of the time—does not mean that it isn't a cause sometimes. The example I like to use to illustrate this concept is speeding tickets. Most people speed when they drive, right? And would you agree with me that speeding causes people to get speeding tickets? If you got a speeding ticket, the cause of your ticket was the fact that you sped, right? But does that mean that most people who speed get tickets? No, right? If that were true, then most people would get a ticket every time they drove! So just because most people don't get speeding tickets when they speed, does not mean that speeding does not cause tickets. Same thing in this question: even if most tea-drinkers don't develop kidney damage, that doesn't mean that the tea doesn't cause kidney damage! This is why causal logic is much less formal/strict than conditional logic—it doesn't follow the same rules, and it doesn't deal in "always"es and "nevers".

Student Question

For this question, what does the pattern of UV light mean? Is it just referring to UV light in general? Because if it is a pattern of light, then would that mean there are different types of UV light patterns? Or is that too big of an assumption? Is question E right because it only supports the stimulus’s premise (that the bugs can see UV light period) and not the conclusion?

Tutor Response

I'm getting the sense that you may be overthinking this one a bit! We don't need to know how many patterns of UV light exist; we're just trying to strengthen the link between "attracted to UV patterns" (whatever that means and however many patterns might exist) and "attracted to webs because of UV patterns." You can think about this question in terms of conditional logic in order to see the flaw in the stimulus more clearly: We know it's true that "UV light <-s-> attracted", but we don't know that it's necessarily true that "attracted -> because of UV". That's what the conclusion wants us to believe. It's making a causal claim: the cause of insect attraction to these webs is UV light. How do we strengthen a causal argument? Well, we can eliminate alternative explanations or strengthen the given explanation. (E) strengthens the given explanation by saying that, when faced with 2 webs one of which has a UV component and one of which does not, the insects go to the one with UV. That weakens the possibility that insects are just attracted to the webs for some reason other than UV light, which strengthens the argument's conclusion that the insects are attracted to the webs because of the UV light reflections. To the second part of your question, we're definitely not trying to just support the premise in a strengthen question! We're trying to support the link between premise and conclusion, which is what (E) does: we know that insects are attracted to UV, and we want to use that premise to support the conclusion that UV is the cause of their attraction to these webs. (E) helps with that by saying that, without UV, insects are less attracted to the given webs.

Student Question

I interpreted answer E as, what is social in nature can or can not be a matter of morality, which matched the interpretation from the stimulus that can or can not be social. I guess I misunderstood the “could not” because in the explanation, it is shown as a conditional statement so I am wondering if I see the phrasing “could not” on the lsat should I interpret it as a conditional like in the video explanation?

Tutor Response

Yes, "could not" means definitely not! If the LSAT wants to indicate the possibility of something being one way or the other, it will use "might not" or "may not". Although we might colloquially use the word "could" the way you interpreted, it technically refers to the ability to do something (did you ever ask if you can go to the bathroom and someone annoying corrected you by saying "I don't know, can you?" and telling you to use the word "may" instead?) The LSAT is very technical and not very colloquial, so always go by the actual definitions of words!

Student Question

I dont understand the negation of the last sentence (the unless claim) - isn’t few another word for some, in which case you would negate it and say no (negation of some is none) serious ecological problems will not be solved, which then would be SEP → Solved - really confused and don’t understand the translation for the last sentence

Tutor Response

There's no real reason here to negate the last sentence (the conclusion)! We just want to translate it to logic so that we're able to see what link is missing in the premises and locate that missing link in the answer choices. Let's break down the conclusion:

"Few serious ecological problems will be solved unless the solutions are made economically enticing."

When you see "few" in this context, instead of thinking "some", think "most are not". For example, if I told you that "few cats are hairless", you probably wouldn't think that the point of my statement was that some cats are hairless. Rather, I'm indicating that most cats are not hairless, right? That's what you would take away from my sentence. The same is true here: by saying that few serious ecological problems will be solver without economically enticing solutions, the conclusion is saying that most serious ecological problems that will be solved will have economically enticing solutions (in this case, the "not" part of the "most are not" formula cancels out with the negating word "unless"). Just think about it colloquially: we're saying that most ecological problems that will be solved will have economically enticing solutions! There's no need to negate that sentence to get to the right answer; you're just looking for the missing link in the premises that will allow the argument to follow logically.

Student Question

For the translation of C is it okay if i negate sufficient the unless statement first, then apply the “no” translation, because then I can see clearly how the no can not just becomes CAN(have SE). is this the proper way of doing it?

Tutor Response

Whenever you see the sentence construction "no...unless", there's a very simple formula to follow: Drop the "not" and turn the "unless" into an arrow. That takes care of all the negations that can get very confusing! So we get from "No nation can have a successful economy unless at some point scientists have communicated well with the public." to "Successful Economy -> Good Communication" Just by dropping the "no" so we end up with the sufficient condition "Successful Economy" and turning the "unless" into an arrow so we end up with " -> Good Communication". What you did is the reason why the method I described above works: the double negative from "unless" and "no" allows us to just leave the sufficient condition in its positive form! I'm glad you were able to work through that, and in the future, you can trust that you're able to just leave the sufficient condition in its positive form and turn the "unless" into an arrow anytime you see "no...unless"!

Student Question

I am trying to understand the stimulus, but the explanation video did not explain and I am not fully understanding the written explanation. Is it possible to break down the third sentence of the stimulus?

Tutor Response

This is definitely a confusing sentence! The key here is to decode the referential phrasing. There are a few phrases in here that are referencing other phrases in the stimulus, so if we replace the vague phrases from the third sentence with the specific context from the preceding two, things should become much clearer. Here's the sentence: "The fact that this assumption is untrue shows the critics' claim to be false."

Okay, so the first thing we need to decode is "this assumption." What assumption are we talking about? The one stated in the previous sentence: "on major issues the media purveyed a range of opinion narrower than that found among consumers of media." So, at this point, we have the third sentence decoded to the point of:

"The fact that it's not true that, on major issues, the media purveys a narrower range of opinion than that found among consumers of media, shows the critics' claim to be false."

What's next? Well, we need to remember what the critics' claim is! Looking back, we can see the critics' claim is: "the power of the media to impose opinions upon people concerning the important issues of the day is too great." So, inserting that into the sentence, we get:

"The fact that it's not true that, on major issues, the media purveys a narrower range of opinion than that found among consumers of media, shows that it's not true that the power of the media to impose opinions concerning important issues is too great."

That makes it a little more comprehensible! The third sentence is saying: Because the media doesn't give a narrower range of opinions than people have anyway, it can't be true that the media's opinion influencing power is too great.

Student Question

I am failing to understand why D is not a good answer. At first, I chose A and then after reading the rest of the questions, I doubted myself and chose D because I thought “ that’s true, maybe politicians have another aim than to persuade voters. Why should I assume that when it’s not explicitly said”. Can you please explain this to me. Thanks

Tutor Response

Remember that our goal in LR questions is to accept as fact any given support or context the argument provides. Our aim is to examine the bridge between support and conclusion. This argument tells us that we're living in a world where scholars and politicians are attempting to persuade people: "makes their arguments against those positions more persuasive" and "they could persuade more voters". We're in the domain of persuasion here, so we don't need to take issue with that baseline context! That's why (D) isn't a flaw: the author names the fact that we're working with a goal of persuasion in both contexts, and we can accept that at face value.

Student Question

In JY’s diagram, he equated “obligation to fulfill an agreement” with “obligation to perform an action.” From a pedagogical standpoint, I get that he’s trying to simplify the terms so that we can better see the S-N confusion. However, isn’t that an inaccurate representation of the argument? An obligation to fulfill an agreement is a subset of an obligation to perform an action. If we trigger “obligation to perform an action,” not everything within this set will be be relevant to our argument. That said, what we’d want to be triggered is the necessary condition (from Make Agreement → Obligation to Fulfill Agreement) and it wouldn’t lead to anything. Is this why JY is able to flatten these two together?

Additionally, I picked (B) because of this discrepancy. I get why the second half of (B) is enough to disqualify this as a contender, but for my learning: isn’t the first part of (B) a legitimate flaw that the argument commits?

Tutor Response

I see what you're saying! I do think it's a flaw that the phrase "anyone who is obligated to perform an action" drops the qualifier from the preceding phrase: "obligation to fulfill the terms of that agreement," and that's a problem. Good point! However, I don't think the first half of (B) is summarizing that point—I think it's kind of saying the opposite. The author doesn't "take for granted that there are obligations other than those resulting from agreements made", because the author says "obligation to perform action -> agreed to perform action." That's not saying that there are obligations other than those resulting from agreements made; it's saying that the obligation to perform an action must be have included an agreement. So that's actually saying that another set of obligations—those to perform actions—also are necessarily accompanied by agreements. The author actually takes for granted that another type of obligation does result from an agreement made. That's the opposite of the first half of (B), which suggests that the author assumes that it's possible to have an obligation without an agreement.

Student Question

I am curious as to how C can be wrong if it can validly be read in two different ways. One of the ways that the question can be read grammatically correctly is that “if living organisms have an appreciable effect on weather, then humans are a part of the group”, which is necessary. Another way that the question can be read grammatically correctly is that “if a living organism has an appreciable effect on weather, then humans influence that organism”. The writers of the question seem to go with only one of the explanations, the second one, and ignore or neglect the other correct interpretation.

Tutor Response

By your first reading of the answer choice, (C) still isn't necessary to the argument. The argument doesn't talk at all about "living organisms"; it only mentions humans. The effects that other living organisms might or might not have on weather patterns isn't our concern at all. If we negate (C), we get "It's not necessarily true that, if living organisms have an appreciable large-scale effect on weather patterns, then this is due at least partly to the effects of human activity." What would that do to the argument? Not much, right? So what if it's possible for dolphins to affect the weather, void of human activity? That has no bearing on whether or not human activity is also affecting the weather in some circumstances! It doesn't matter to the argument, so it isn't necessary.

I'm also not convinced about the second reading of the answer choice—what do you mean humans influence the organism? I might be misunderstanding what you mean, but I'm not seeing any indication that the answer choice is suggesting that humans must influence the organisms.

Student Question

I picked up on the gap between “obligation to fulfill the terms of that agreement” and “anyone who is obligated to perform an action.”Correct me if I’m wrong, but an obligation to fulfill the terms of an agreement is not the same thing as being obligated to perform an action because the former is a subset of the latter. Sufficient-necessity confusion aside, the sub-conclusion to this argument isn’t guaranteed because there could be other things (besides having agreed to do something) that oblige you to perform an action (like, sense of duty).

Tutor Response

It's funny that you start by saying "sufficient-necessity confusion aside", when what you go on to do is actually describe the sufficient-necessity confusion! You're absolutely right that the issue here is that, just because "agreement -> obligation" does not mean "obligation -> agreement", because there could absolutely be other reasons why you're obligated to do something. We don't know for sure that an obligation necessitates an agreement, just on the basis of the given fact that an agreement necessitates obligation, and that's the fallacy here: that's the sufficient/necessity confusion!

Student Question

See i get why D is right, by easy POE but isint the conclusion it shouldn't NEED to be reduced and than the ans chioce is it should NEVER be reduced, isint that 2 different things?

Tutor Response

The conclusion isn't that social sciences shouldn't need to be reduced to mathematical formulas; it's the they shouldn't be reduced to mathematical formulas. The support for that conclusion is that reducing social sciences to formulas would distort the social phenomena. That's not support for the concept that we shouldn't need to reduce to math but we can still do it if we want to; it's support for the idea that we shouldn't reduce social sciences to math at all! If we do, we'll distort the phenomena, and that's not a good thing. So, according to the stimulus, it's not a good idea to reduce social sciences to mathematical formulas at all.

Student Question

I am really disappointed in myself for choosing B over E, but I am not sure that I would do better on a question of a similar complexity in the future. I struggle with questions in which there are two sentences that either both have conclusion indicators, or neither of which have conclusion indicators or premise indicators. Do you have any advice for questions such as these? I was fully convinced that the second sentence was the conclusion after 3 and a half minutes of working on this question.

Tutor Response

I have three points to make here!

1. Don't be disappointed in yourself and don't despair! The LSAT is a marathon, not a sprint, and you're learning. It's okay to get things wrong—it helps you figure out what skills you need to hone!

2. Take a closer look at (B). Even if you thought that the second sentence was the main conclusion, is (B) paraphrasing the second sentence? No, right? The second sentence says that the view that unregulated markets necessarily accompany democracy is flawed because it ignores the difference between private consumer and public citizen (my paraphrase of sentence 2) is not reflected in the sentence "Unregulated markets are incompatible with democratic sovereignty." That means that you can't have unregulated markets and democratic sovereignty. The author doesn't claim that, though, and that's not what sentence 2 is about! So that's your first clue that (B) is wrong: it's not something the author even says.

3. MC questions can be deceptively tricky for exactly the reason you named: we can't always rely on indicators, and the LSAT writers will try to trick us because they know we're on the lookout for those words! In general, I recommend using the "because" test. So take the two sentences you're considering and put them together into one sentence, with the word "because" in between. Then, reverse the order. Ask yourself which one of those sounded better/made more sense? Once you figure that out, the phrase that came after "because" is your premise and the phrase that came before "because" is your conclusion! Let's try it. Which sounds better/makes more sense: "[The view that unregulated markets should accompany democratic sovereignty] ignores the crucial distinction between the private consumer and the public citizen, because supporters of political democracy can also support marketplace regulation." Or "Supporters of political democracy can also support marketplace regulation, because [the view that unregulated markets should accompany democratic sovereignty] ignores the crucial distinction between the private consumer and the public citizen." ? The second one, right? The second one says "This view is correct, because an opposing view is flawed." That makes way more sense than the reverse!

Student Question

Is the correct answer correct because gravity implies the existence of mass, whose existence is backed by evidence from the passage, and nothing in the passage casts doubt on gravity or mass?

Tutor Response

This is definitely one of the more weakly supported questions on the LSAT. Basically, the support comes from the idea that, in response to the observation that there isn't enough mass in the universe to explain the organization of things based on the theory of gravity, cosmologists have not considered other theories; rather, they've attempted to find or theorized about where/what the missing mass might be. The lack of "so maybe it's some other force" and the focus on "so there must be other matter" is what supports the idea that gravity is likely the force that will account for the organization of the universe. It's weak support, for sure, but it's the best of our options on this one!

Student Question

I understand what you mean, but I thought ‘great music’ in the last sentence refers to ‘any music that is great art’ in the second sentence, so there’s no need to assume great music = great art again. Is it improper idea?

Tutor Response

I hear what you're saying—this is an annoying question, because it picks up on a colloquially reasonable assumption: that "music that is great art" is the same as "great music." When I say "colloquially reasonable", I mean an assumption that would make sense out in the real world. For example, if I was talking to you casually about "music that is great art", then it would be totally fair of you to assume that I was talking about great music! but the LSAT picks up on those everyday assumptions and exploits our tendency to make them. In this case, it's asking you not to conflate the two, and to allow room for "great music" to logically indicate something other than "music that is great art"; for there to be a possibility that "great music" is not a subset of "great art".

Student Question

Hello, I am confused as to where and how the commentator objects to Roehmer impugning?

Tutor Response

This sentence is the author objecting to idea of "impugning the motives of adversaries": "That style of argumentation is guaranteed not to change the minds of people with opposing viewpoints; it only alienates them." The words "that style of argumentation" are referential phrasing, so it's important to take a moment as you're reading to make sure you know what that phrase is referring to! In this case, the "style of argumentation" in question is "impugning them motives of adversaries." The author objects to that by claiming that it's not a good way to change people's minds and that it's alienating!

Student Question

The right AC for #7 is really frustrating. I don’t understand why D undermines. If contemporary critics of the twentieth-century autobiography do not know about the nineteenth-century ones, then how could have the nineteenth century autobiographies have revolutionized the genre? They are not well-known. So they had no impact on the genre. If they did revolutionize the genre, wouldn’t the critics have known about them?

Tutor Response

I hear you on this—it's a subtle distinction that makes (D) correct here. Remember that in order to revolutionize something, you have to fundamentally change it (per Merriam-Webster). (D) isn't arguing that it's somehow true that these little-known writers revolutionized the genre; rather, it's saying that writers of autobiography were already writing in the way that the passage claims was revolutionary. If the genre already included examples of this form, then you can't revolutionize the genre by starting to write in that way—it's already being done! So these writers don't represent a fundamental change, because they're doing something that was already done in the genre.

Student Question

I picked E. Maybe im not understanding the concept of MSS in this specific question stem. Is “only” too strong in E. why does lower success rate matter in the correct AC?

Tutor Response

The idea of "success rates" only matters in evaluating (E) because (E) is about success rates! The whole statement (E) is making is about success rates: That the only reason for the high success rates is that scientists select the problems they want to solve. That's why "success rates" matters when we're figuring out whether (E) is supported. It's not supported in the end, because we know that it's not true that the only reason for scientists' high success rates is the fact that scientists pick their problems; we know that because the stimulus tells us that politicians and business leaders' selections of problems for scientists to solve also causes a high success rate (their choices are guided by scientists, but the choices themselves are made by the politicians and business people, contrary to (E)'s assertion). Even without that statement, though, (E) would be too strong: the stimulus doesn't rule out the possibility that there are other reasons for science's high success rates.

Student Question

Regarding AC (D): I’m not sure what would draw me to interpret “A crop that was once a large production crop in Kalotopia...” to mean “At least one crop that was once a large production crop in Kalotopia...” (J.Y.’s reading) instead of “A given crop that was once a large production crop in Kalotopia...” (my reading). If, say, soybeans were a crop which was once in large production in Kalotopia, then the phrase "A crop that was once a large production crop in Kalotopia..." would apparently refer to them, but who is to say that growing soybeans would be beneficial for Kalotopia's farmers and general economy in the modern day? The possibility of such cases makes the answer unsupported under my interpretation of it, which is obviously problematic as it led to me ruling out the correct AC. Is there a rule of thumb that could be used to interpret ACs like this correctly?

Tutor Response

Great question! You're reading "A crop..." as "Any crop..." We generally can't make that assumption, though. Notice that "a" is not one of the Group 1 sufficient condition indicators, but "any" is. They're different words with different meanings. Going forward, my advice is to be very careful about noting the distinction between these two words. If you're inclined to conflate them, double check with yourself that that's a reasonable thing to do (for example, if you have the word "always", then you know you're dealing with a conditional statement: "An apple is always tasty" gives us apple -> tasty, whereas "an apple is tasty" only tells us that one apple is tasty. This can also be explained with conditional indicator groups: "always" is group 2).

Student Question

hi, i actually can’t agree on A...even if A is true, the study mentioned in the passage would provide reason to believe that situational factors do not account for all code-switching...

Tutor Response

Let's get clear on what the question is asking. It wants us to weaken the author's interpretation of the study. So our first step is to figure out what the author's interpretation actually is. What's the point the author is trying to prove by introducing this study? What's the purpose the study serves in the context of the passage? Well, she tells us right here: "situational factors do not account for all code-switching." The study is supposed to demonstrate that point, by giving us an example of a circumstance in which people code-switch not as a result of "situational factors." So the author is interpreting the study as an example of code-switching that does not result from situational factors. The right answer, then, will be something that undermines that interpretation: something that suggests that the people in the study actually were code-switching as a result of situational factors. (A) makes that more likely: if the family only spoke English when situational factors changed significantly, then there's a correlation between code-switching and situational factors. That suggests the possibility that situational factors caused the code-switching, thereby undermining the author's interpretation of the study as an example of code-switching that was not caused by situational factors.

Student Question

I absolutely agree that D is the answer, but don’t understand the written explanation on C which says “Y doesn’t have an opinion. He doesn’t note whether the photograph makes a statement or not, and doesn’t discuss any relationship between making a statement and being an attractive photograph.”I thought exactly the opposite though, that C can’t be the answer because both Y and Z agrees with the statement. I thought Y says the photograph is attractive just because of the composition, no matter whether the photograph makes a statement or not. Even Y didn’t say anything about statement, we know Y thinks the photo is attractive. Z also agrees the photo is attractive(Z says “it’s pretty”). Am I missing out something?

Tutor Response

It sounds like you made a bit of an assumption here! Editor Y said the photo was attractive and gave us some reasons why, but she didn't say that the photograph makes no statement. Maybe, if the photograph made no statement, Editor Y would've not found it attractive! It's quite possible that Editor Y did not state ever necessary condition for attractiveness. Like, if I tell you that this ice cream is good because it tastes like chocolate, does that mean that I think ice cream can be good even if it isn't cold? No, right? It just means that the reason I like this ice cream is because it tastes like chocolate! That doesn't imply that the only thing I need to be true about ice cream is that it tastes like chocolate—it just means that I stated one thing that made it good!

Student Question

I chose A for this question because I thought “famously disallowed” was an answer that conveyed the negative way the author felt towards the reasoning. But it is not. I thought it was negative, but the explanation said it does not convey a negative opinion. How come? And what makes “noxious aspect better”? Do you have any tips for author attitude questions? I went with A because I thought it was not too strong, right in the middle. When do I know to choose a strong answer for an author’s attitude question? Thank you.

Tutor Response

Let's take this one by one. Firstly, let's talk about why "famously disallowed" doesn't convey a negative attitude. Think about this: what if I told you that Law Number 2 (making this up) "famously disallowed" murder. Does the fact that I'm telling you the law "famously disallowed" murder mean that I feel negatively about the law? Does that mean that I think it was a bad thing to disallow murder? No, right? It's just a fact: the law disallowed murder. I'm not expressing any attitude or opinion by telling you that information. "Noxious aspect" is better, because it does express negativity. "Noxious" means "harmful" or "morally corrupting". Harm and moral corruption are negative things, so "noxious aspect" identifies a negative emotion. You did a great job of identifying how the author felt; you just missed the mark a bit on figuring out which answer choice expressed the same feeling! That means you're more than halfway there on these types of questions.

You're also right to err on the side of less extreme sentiments, because more extreme answer choices are harder for the passages to support. However, you can pick an extreme answer choice if the author has expressed an extreme opinion. For example, if the author says "I absolutely despise this law", then you can pick an answer choice that says the author has extreme dislike for the law. But if the author hasn't expressed really, really strong negative feelings, then you don't want to pick a really, really strong answer. When in doubt, go with the less extreme, because it's more rare for an LSAT passage to express an extreme position. In this case, though, you were just looking for the only answer choice that showed any negativity!

Student Question

i chose a here because for passage B the end of P2 shows the opposite occurs we get positive emotion, the opposite of extreme mismatch, cont sound could be the opposite of that meaning its positive, also fro complexity how is it driectly said that its a positive exp? for these qs does the right answer need to be explicitly stated?

Tutor Response

I'm not sure where you're seeing mention in passage B of the opposite of continuous sound? If you're able to send me that citation, I'd be happy to give a response to that! I'm not seeing it, so I wonder if you're making an assumption based on another statement? Also, I would be very careful about assuming that an opposite cause means an opposite effect. Think about this: Ice cream causes joy. Does that mean lack of ice cream causes misery? Not really, right? You can not have ice cream and be perfectly fine with that!

To your second question, we get support for (E) in Passage A here: "a certain complexity of sounds can be expected to have a positive effect on the listener." and in Passage B here: "a trained listener will have a greater preference for complex melodies." You're right that we're looking for an explicit statement for this type of question; thankfully, we get that in this passage!

Student Question

I am having some trouble with Q19 from this passage. I reviewed this passage today, and it was the only question I missed (even though a couple of months ago, I seemingly was able to get to the correct answer). I definitely see the specific part of passage B that it is addressing. The author of B is highlighting the fact that evolutionary psychologists often overlook other potential explanations for human behaviour and thus deeming that an interest in gene proliferation is a necessary cause of certain human behaviours. I am having an issue with the wording of C: “To explain a type of human behavior in evolutionary terms, it is sufficient to show that the behavior would have improved the reproductive success of early humans.” So, showing that a behaviour in humans would have improved the reproductive success is sufficient in forming an evolutionary explanation for the behaviour. My issue is with the first part of the answer choice. I feel like the author of B is not committed to what saying exactly is insufficient to form an evolutionary* explanation. Rather, he is talking about what is insufficient to form an explanation about a given behaviour in general. Restated, it seems that the author of passage B is more interested in talking about the criteria for explanations of human behaviour in general, rather than what constitutes a evolutionary explanation. For that reason, answer choice C just did not seem sufficiently accurate for me to choose it. I hope I am making sense—I can further elaborate my thought process if necessary! thank you!

Tutor Response

I see your point! I think you're absolutely right that the author of passage B is taking issue with the concept of explaining a behavior in general, using a singular evolutionary benefit. His support for this claim is that there can be many possible explanations for a behavior, and without ruling all of them out, you can't pick just one of them as the explanation. Think about what might be an evolutionary explanation for a benefit: would the only option be reproduction? No, right? You could explain certain behaviors from an evolutionary perspective by talking about how they might benefit personal survival, for example. So his premise extends to evolutionary explanations in addition to general explanations: without ruling out all possible evolutionary explanations, it's insufficient to explain a behavior purely in terms of its reproductive benefits.

Student Question

AC a seems to me to be a good answer choice because supporters are microorganisms, so we are having them switch sides to support by leveling diversity to natural balance. Additionally, AC B, just says stop the attack of microorganisms, but i interpreted the removal to be doing more in the passage- not just removing but also helping make diveristy/natural balance

Tutor Response

The dynamic described in the last paragraph is one in which beneficial microorganisms are introduced in order to fend off the harmful microorganisms, thereby protecting other plants from the harmful microorganisms. So we're looking for an analogy in which something is attempting to harm something else (like the harmful microorganisms attempt to harm the plants) and a third party steps in to defend the thing being harmed by strengthening the thing being harmed ("fungi that live symbiotically on plant roots and strengthen them against the effects of disease organisms"). There's no side-switching here; we just have a harmer, a harmed, and a third party attempting to strengthen the harmed. That's the dynamic described in (B)! The diversity/natural balance you referenced is strengthened, because the helpful microorganisms defend plants against the harmful microorganisms, just like the newspaper strengthens the rival party against Party A by defending the rival party.

Student Question

I dont understand this at all. 1. How can we assume passion is interest 2. How do you flesh out what is important to take a way from what each speaker says.

Tutor Response

1. We don't have to assume that passion is interest! We just have to assume that if you're passionate about something, then you're interested in it. That seems like a fair assumption, right? How can you feel strongly enough about something to be "passionate" without being interested in it?

2. This is an excellent question! Sometimes, point at issue questions don't lend themselves well to predictions prior to looking at the answer choices, because it isn't immediately obvious which disagreement the LSAT will choose to focus on or how they'll phrase it. In general, look for opinions expressed by each speaker. We know that Tania feels that a good art critic is not fair, that they're biased, that passion cannot be separated from emotion. We know that Monique doesn't think that art is just passion, and that art criticism can be unbiased. Your approach should be to read each answer choice and ask: "does Tania agree with this?" and then "does Monique agree with this?" When you find one for which the answer to one is yes and the answer to the other is no, that's the right choice!