Student Question

I just really do not understand why A is correct and I tried looking at the discussions and this confused me even more “Put aside for a second the discrepancy between "many" and "most. "Let's instead hone in on that last bolded sentence. This condition, as we learned in the stimulus, is false: it does not actually occur in the real world. In other words, it must be negated. This requires also negating the sufficient condition - "the herbal mixture is effective"transforms to "the herbal mixture is NOT effective."

Tutor Response

I'm glad you're utilizing the discussion posts! As you've found, some explanations work better for some students than others; seems like the explanation you pasted in your question isn't clicking for you personally, so let's try a different way of looking at the question instead.

One of the LSAT's tried and true tricks is to say something that isn't all that complicated—but in the vaguest possible language, such that the meaning of the answer choice (or stimulus) becomes unrecognizable. That's what they're doing with (A): they're using vague language to mask a relatively simple idea. So what do we do when that happens? Well, we can try to map the vague concepts in the answer choice onto the specific concepts in the stimulus and see if the match makes sense. If it does, that's our answer! So let's try it:

"finding a claim to be false on the grounds that it would if true have consequences that are false"

What are our vague terms here? Well, we have "finding a claim to be false", "the grounds that it would if true" and "consequences that are false." Let's try to map these onto the stimulus one by one. First: "finding a claim to be false." What's the claim that the coldsufferer makes? That the medicine isn't effective, right? And she does find it to be false, so that part maps on well. Okay, moving on: "the grounds that it would if true" Note the referential phrasing here. What does "it" refer to? The claim that the medicine isn't effective. Now, does the coldsufferer talk about what would happen if it were true that the medicine is effective? Yes, right? She says that, if the medicine were effective, something would happen. So that maps on! Finally, we have "consequences that are false." What could that refer to? Well, the coldsufferer says that "everyone would use the medicine" (a consequence) and then tells us that everyone does not use the medicine (the consequence is false). So (A) maps onto the stimulus well, and that makes it our answer!

Student Question

I struggle almost exclusively with these types of issues and am not sure what to call them / how to only drill them, like SA but with a missing conditional premise. If my issue is usually not knowing which premise I’m trying to add (whether it be one in the middle of chain, one that would begin the chain, etc), would you recommend any specific lessons from the core curriculum? Drilling SA with tag of conditional?

Tutor Response

​Great job recognizing a pattern in your studying—targeted study will help immensely to increase your score. If you're struggling with conditional reasoning SA questions, I'd go back to the Core Curriculum Foundations lessons on conditional logic first. Do a lot of translation drills and all the skill builders in that section to make sure that you're extremely comfortable translating stimuli and answer choices to formal logic and that your valid argument forms are second-nature. Then, go back to the SA lessons and solidify your understanding of what a sufficient assumption question is asking you to do. These lessons build on the Foundations conditional logic lessons, so I want to stress the importance of mastering the Foundations skills first. Keep us posted on your progress!

Student Question

Why is the answer C and not B?

Tutor Response

(B) is a very tricky answer choice, and the LSAT writers know exactly what they're doing with it! The answer comes down to this one phrase from the stimulus: "no headache pill stops pain more quickly." Let's think about what that means. Does it mean that no other headache pill can stop pain as quickly as Danaxil? No, it doesn't. It only means exactly what it says: no other headache pill can stop pain more quickly than Danaxil. It's very possible that a pill could stop pain as quickly as Danaxil! Let's try an analogy: What if I told you that no one ran the marathon faster than Eliud Kipchoge? Would that preclude the possibility that Kipchoge tied for first with another runner? No, right? Just because no one ran faster does not mean no one ran the same pace! Similarly, just because no headache pill is faster than Danaxil doesn't mean that no headache pill is as fast. So we don't know for sure that (B) is right, because the other headache pill that Jane took might relieve the pain jsut as quickly as Danaxil. We do know, though, that it can't possible relieve the pain more quickly, so (C) is supported!

Student Question

how do i identify an intermediate conclusion?

Tutor Response

An intermediate conclusion (sometimes called a sub-conclusion) is a phrase that operates as both a premise (supporting another conclusion) and a conclusion (supported by a different premise). In this question, for example, "humans are still biologically adapted to a diet of wild foods" is supported by the premise "humans have evolved very little since the development of agriculture" (this support structure renders the phrase in question a conclusion) and subsequently offers support for the assertion that "the more our diet consists of wild foods, the healthier we will be" (this support structure renders the phrase in question a premise). I recommend checking out this lesson and working through the subsequent skill builder to solidify your understanding of this concept/the parts of a complex argument!

Student Question

The explanations had said that we have a some and all statement, we have to have the some claim come before the all. what happens if we have the same statement somewhere else, like if we have one some or only some in just the conclusion? Do that change the rule? or any time we see all and some statements we have to put the some before, regardless of how often they may appear in each of the premises?

Tutor Response

Your question is about logic translations and valid argument forms, which is truly the key to unlocking high LSAT scores for the majority of students. As such, I highly recommend spending some time solidifying your understanding of these rules using the Core Curriculum Foundations lessons! A strong foundation in these concepts will make questions like the one you asked about a breeze.

As to the issue of ordering "some" and "all" terms, it's not the case that you have to put a "some" claim before an "all" claim—indeed, you don't typically have the choice of where to put the terms; that comes from the information in the stimulus. If I tell you that "all dogs are cute and some cute things are furry," you have "dog -> cute <-s-> furry"; if I tell you that "some dogs are cute and all cute things are furry," you have "dog <-s-> cute -> furry". You don't get to make that call; the LSAT writers do! Your job is to recognize the order based on the language in the stimulus. When explanation videos say that we need the "some" to come before the "all", that doesn't mean you need to somehow make that be true. It's referring to the valid argument forms, which tell us that "all" before "some" doesn't allow us to draw any valid conclusions, whereas "some" before "all" does let us validly conclude that some of the first term also fall in the category of the third term. To return to my example, that means that "dog -> cute <-s-> furry" doesn't let me draw a conclusion, whereas "dog <-s-> cute -> furry" does let me conclude that some dogs are furry.

The question you asked about doesn't actually follow either of those forms, though. Rather, the argument form in this question is a some relationship and an all relationship sharing a sufficient condition (toggle on the "Show Analysis" button on this question for an illustration of that structure). Again, I highly recommend devoting a generous amount of time to nailing down these concepts using the Core Curriculum! I promise it will pay dividends later on.

Student Question

I was hesitant to choose answer choice D because I didn’t see anywhere in the passage that suggested African American artists’ success in the 1920s. I eventually chose it because I thought this was okay since it was an implied question. Is this reasoning correct?

Tutor Response

You're absolutely right, and I think that's a great way to think about it! I teach students that the first step in answering any RC question is to orient yourself along the spectrum of "explicitly stated ------- strongly implied". Once you know which side the question falls on, you can tailor your approach to finding the answer. This is a "strongly implied" question (as you noted), so the answer won't be explicitly stated in the passage. It may be strongly supported or somewhat weakly supported (as I'd argue is the case here, given the lack of information about the 1920s), but we know that it won't be stated outright, so a close search of the passage for the exact information in a given answer choice isn't a good use of time in these types of questions. Great work on this question!

Student Question

I chose (E) over (A) because I thought, “Well, we don’t see how he’s marketing the chemical, if anything he decided not to bother with that at all, and find new uses for it.” Do you have advice for not over-scrutinizing a small detail on RC when the AC holistically makes better sense than the others? I went for (E) because it still included the idea of it being a “promising alternative,” generally focused on the “science behind it” which I equated to “chemical processes”

Tutor Response

For this question, I actually do think the passage talks about how Koskan markets the chemical: he focuses on specialty application niches, targeting specific markets like fertilizer and offshore oil production.

In general, I think students tend to get distracted by smaller details when they lose track of the task at hand. Remember that this is a passage purpose question, so we're looking for an answer to the question: why did the author write this passage? It's a good moment to try pre-phrasing your answer, by which I mean, make a prediction before you go into the answer choices. Then, you're less likely to get thrown off by the LSAT's tricky language, because you have a plan and a sense of what you're looking for! If you go into a question like this using process of elimination, it's easier to talk yourself into a wrong answer and out of a right one, because you're more likely to lose track of the actual point of the question.

Student Question

I’m having a really hard time with sufficient and necessary conditions. I don’t understand the difference fully, so I am struggling with flaw questions that ask about sufficiency and necessity. Do you have any advice?

Tutor Response

Great question, and I absolutely do have advice! But two quick notes before I get to concrete steps to take. Firstly, you're not alone! Almost everyone is confused about the difference between sufficiency and necessity when they start studying the LSAT. It's not intuitive, and it takes time, effort, and practice to make it all make sense. That's why the LSAT tends to be more like a marathon than a sprint for most people (myself included). Secondly, this is an extremely foundational concept on the LSAT, so it's excellent that you've noticed that you're struggling with it and that you've decided to take steps to figure it out! I highly recommend prioritizing this before you take timed practice tests or move on to other concepts. Which leads me back to your question: How to figure out what's going on with sufficiency vs. necessity?

Luckily, 7Sage has a Core Curriculum designed to teach you exactly that! I highly recommend working through all the lessons (only skip things you feel really, really, really confident on). If you want to hone in specifically on sufficiency/necessity, go to the "Foundations" section and click on "Conditional and Set Logic." There, you'll find 12 hours of lessons, practice sets, and skill builders to help with exactly this issue! I truly cannot overstate the importance of building a solid foundation in these concepts; it will pay dividends as you progress through your studying and will allow you to reach higher scores than you could otherwise access. You've got this!!

Student Question

Could you further explain why C is incorrect? I chose C as I thought the commissioner didn’t directly suggest that the report was the only direct evidence that needed to be considered. Furthermore, the commissioner used the last sentence of the stimulus as evidence as well, so I thought since he is referring to 2 things as evidence, he is therefore not only implying that the report was the only evidence needed.

Tutor Response

Note this part of the stimulus: "I based my decision on the report." That's telling us that the commissioner made her decision because of the information in the report, and suggests that that's the only evidence she considered. The last sentence isn't about the power plant issue; it's about a separate jail relocation issue, which the commissioner is trying to use as analogous evidence to support the conclusion that she was justified in agreeing with the neighborhood association's report on the power plant issue (because she agreed with the neighborhood association on the jail relocation issue). That doesn't indicate that she consulted any other evidence or sources regarding the power plant issue!

Student Question

So with analogy, relevancy must be established? What does that mean? Can I get an example?

Tutor Response

Yes, relevance is extremely important to an analogy! Here's an example of an argument by analogy:

I conclude that it's easier for humans to breathe underwater than on the ground. My evidence for this is that fish have an easier time breathing underwater than on the ground.

What's the problem with that argument? It's ridiculous, right? Because the way that fish breathe is completely irrelevant to the way that humans breathe! Fish have gills and humans have lungs. I'm trying to reason by analogy, but the analogy I'm using has no relevance to the conclusion I'm trying to draw, so it's an extremely weak argument. Okay, so let me try again with another example:

I conclude that it's easier for humans to breathe on the ground than underwater. My evidence for this is that humans have lungs and so do zebras, and zebras breathe easier on the ground than they do underwater.

Much better, right? Because I established relevance by stating that humans and zebras share the same breathing mechanism. Okay, so let's get back to the question at hand. We have the (simplified) argument:

Calculators won't detract from students' knowledge of calculation procedural rationale, because written language didn't detract from people's capacity to remember information and speak extemporaneously.

Is that more similar to my first example or my second? It's more like the first, right? There's no reason given to believe that something that was true for written language/memory will also be true for calculators/comprehension of procedural rationale. I don't know if we're dealing with gills or lungs! We need to establish relevance to make this analogy trustworthy.

This is a good concept to be aware of for strengthen/weaken questions, as well: if an argument is made via analogy, you can strengthen it by increasing the relevance of the analogy or weaken it by making the analogy less analogous!

Student Question

I was stuck between choosing C and E. If E were true, doesn’t the fact that psychologists should not teach children who are unlikely to suffer nightmares as adults support the idea that psychologists should direct their efforts to identifying nightmare-prone children? (in order to prevent teaching these techniques to children unlikely to suffer)

Tutor Response

Remember that our conclusion is not just that psychologists should direct efforts toward identifying nightmare-prone children with no reason given; rather, it's that psychologists should do so so that the children can replace their nightmares with pleasant dreams. We need an answer choice that supports the whole conclusion: one that tells us that we should do the thing that will help reduce chronic nightmares. That's what (C) gives us.

The conclusion is not about who we shouldn't teach the technique, and it's not about children who are unlikely to suffer from nightmares as adults. (E) provides support for a conclusion about what we should not do; we need an answer choice that connects us to the conclusion about what we should do.

This is another moment to remember that our goal is to identify the answer choice of least resistance. It's usually possible to add a whole bunch of assumptions and find some hoops to jump through that can make a different answer choice feel attractive, but the right answer will be the one that requires the fewest hoops and assumptions; it's the one you don't have to talk yourself into. (C) gives us the straightforward bridge we need here, so even if you're not seeing an ironclad reason to eliminate (E) under timed conditions, your best bet is to pick the simplest fit and move on!

Student Question

When I read the question, I understood the following “The southern half of a certain region of the earth was covered entirely by water during the Cretaceous period” as not the whole Southern part of world, but rather a certain region. For me that meant that there could have been certain part of southern half of the world where there was no water.

Tutor Response

You're absolutely right—this stimulus is only referring to the southern half of a certain region! But so is answer choice E, and, in fact, so are all the answer choices: each says "...the (northern/southern) half of the region". You're right that parts of the southern half of the world could have had no water, but no part of the question or the answer choices asks about that.

Student Question

This question has been the bane of my LSAT Journey. I will argue the answer is D (which is wrong).“There is only one issue important to Kay, and only Medina shares her opinion on that issue.”The only two relevant scenarios are; Kay agrees with Medina, or disagrees with Medina”. Crucially, I argue that Kay cannot agree/disagree with the other two candidates on an issue important to her, since they simply don’t share their opinion.Scenario 1: Kay agrees with Medina, the principle in the stim is not triggered, anything can happen since we don’t know Kay’s principle in this scenario.Scenario 2: Kay disagrees with Medina on the issue important to her, the principle is triggered—she now cannot vote for Medina as she disagrees with her on more issues important to her than any other candidate.Therefore, the only unacceptable solution is that Kay votes for Medina (as demonstrated in Scenario 2).I don’t think it’s correct to say Kay disagrees with Legrand/Norton on an issue important to her. They don’t share their opinion on “an issue important to her”, ergo how can she disagree?

Tutor Response

I'm glad to hear that this question is the bane of your LSAT journey, because I think I have a pretty simple answer for you! And then you can put that bane solidly behind you and get back to loving the LSAT 😁

Here it is: You're misreading the phrase "shares her opinion." That last sentence of the stimulus is not saying that only Medina has been open about her opinion on the issue important to Kay. Rather, that sentence is saying that only Medina shares Kay's opinion on the important issue. The "her" is referring to Kay, not Medina: "There is only one issue important to Kay, and only Medina shares Kay's opinion on that issue." That tells us that Legrand and Norton disagree with Kay on the issue (they do not share Kay's opinion), which leads us to (B).

How do I know that your reading of the last sentence is not the way it was intended? It's a good question. I've read this stimulus many times with many students and I've never seen it the way you did, but it's an interesting catch and I can't think of a good syntax reason why your reading is wrong. It seems to me to simply be the less intuitive interpretation (as unsatisfying as that answer may be). Firstly, it feels odd to say "only Medina shares her opinion", when we would usually use phrasing/the verb tense "only Medina has shared her opinion" to describe a candidate talking about their position. Secondly, context clues: the beginning of the stimulus is all about scenarios where Kay does or doesn't agree with candidates, so that's how we're primed to read the phrase "shares her opinion". Also, just practically, per your reading, we wouldn't have enough information to make any inferences: as you pointed out, we wouldn't know whether Medina agrees with Kay or not, and we certainly wouldn't know where the other candidates stand.

Student Question

I interpreted (A) as a correlation v. causation trap.

The passage doesn't explicitly say that opposing higher taxes causes someone to be a better leader. They say that it always correlates with being a better leader.

Their claim could analogize to: "Any day when air conditioning units are in heavy use will put forrests more at risk of fire than days with low AC use will."

Maybe the politician believes that the most agressive war hawk will be best, and that war hawks always oppose higher taxes.

Obviously, this isn't the intutive reading, but it's the skeptical reading that LR usually requires. When I saw (A)'s explicitly causal language, I figured that was the tell.

Do you think I misread? Is there some other way they would have formulated the passage if they wanted us to interpret it as correlation? Or should I read (A) as non-causal?

(I picked C knowing it was a super-lame weakener, but feeling it was the only answer not rooted in a misreading of the passage.)

Tutor Response

I'm not 100% sure I'm understanding your question, so please follow up and let me know if I'm missing something! Are you saying that you read the claim in the stimulus as "opposing higher taxes is correlated with being a better leader" when better support would've been "opposing higher taxes causes one to be a better leader"? If that's the way you read it, I'm glad you have your cookie-cutter flaw antenna turned on, but you zeroed in on the wrong one here: the flaw in this stimulus isn't rooted in correlation vs. causation; rather, it's a belief vs. facts issue. The problem is that the author of the argument is basing a factual conclusion (Thompson is the best candidate to lead the nation) on a set of opinions (lots of people think that opposing taxes makes you a better leader). But that's terrible support! Lots of people probably also think that supporting higher taxes makes you a better leader! Lots of people thought the Earth was flat, but that didn't make it true! That's the glaring flaw here, not a correlation/causation issue.

Step 1 in a weaken question is to identify the flaw; step 2 is to figure out how to exploit said flaw (in general terms); step 3 is to find an answer choice that does so! If you misidentified the flaw in the beginning, the other two steps become much more challenging and the LSAT writers are adept at leading you astray in such instances. It sounds like that may be what happened here. So how can you catch this flaw in the future? When you're reading a stimulus, stay tuned into the sources of information: is something stated as a fact we should accept as true, or is there a person or group providing an opinion? There are several types of flaws that stem from the fact that information is coming from imperfect sources (belief vs. fact, appealing to an inexpert authority, unrepresentative samples) so it's a really good thing to watch out for. My advice is to review this super helpful Flaw Cheat Sheet (I refer to this document a lot with my tutoring students!) and make sure you have a really solid understanding of each type of flaw/can recognize their hallmark features. Then, when you're faced with a flaw/strengthen/weaken question, you'll be set up to recognize and catch all of the LSAT's favorite flaws! If you're armed with an encyclopedic knowledge of the cookie-cutter flaws, it's much less likely that your brain will go to correlation/causation when the flaw is fact vs. belief.

Student Question

Starting at 9:50 in the video, Kevin says “valuable contribution” can be swapped with “well run.” I understand this, but I also wrote it out like this on my scratch paper and I wanted to ask if this is correct and shows why D is correct. My diagram: large zoo and valuable contribution ←s→ open all year. I also wrote: large zoo and valuable contribution→ large and well run → have some full-time veterinarian. I saw the overlap with ”large and valuable contribution ←s→ open all year” and “large and valuable contribution→ have some full time,” meaning there is at least one zoo that is open all year that have full-time veterinarians on staff. Sorry this is worded in a confusing way. Thanks!

Tutor Response

That makes perfect sense to me! Looks like you chained up your terms well and used your knowledge of valid argument forms effectively. Great work!

Student Question

To me, it seems like J.Y. is trying to say there are 2 analogies, and the correct answer choice will weaken the link between one of the analogies. The only problem is, I find it kind of unnatural to draw an analogy between the bit about the mororists and this claim, 'Our usually shortsighted city council should be praised for using similar wisdom when they hired a long-term economic development adviser.'

Tutor Response

You're right that the relationship between the motorists and the city council does feel like an unnatural analogy; it feels tenuous, at best, and you're demonstrating great instincts by picking up on that! It is an analogy, though. The author of the stimulus is attempting to show that, just as motorists benefit from preventative investment in their cars which saves them from big fees in later years, so too does the city council benefit from preventative investment in an economic development adviser which will save a lot of money in the future. See the connection? It's not a great argument, as you pointed out, because motorists and city council members don't seem to have all that much in common as concepts...but just because it's weak support/a bad argument doesn't mean that it's not support or not an argument! In fact, a bad argument is often a really lucky thing in a weaken question: there's lots of room for exploiting the argument's many flaws!

Student Question

I still do not understand why AC E is wrong.

Tutor Response

Let's pretend that (E) is true. How would that change the argument? In a flaw question like this, we want the correct answer choice, if taken as true, to present a major challenge to the argument (as D does). But so what if the individuals disagreeing about works of art are experts? Would that suggest that there are valid, objective standards? Not really, right? It could just as easily mean that people develop expertise by honing their personal, subjective taste. Whether the "beholder" is an expert or an amateur doesn't impact the likelihood of there existing valid, objective standards for determining artistic value. Contrastingly, (D) highlights an alternative possibility that the premises allow for and that the conclusion overlooks: maybe there are objective standards, and the differences in value determinations are merely the product of some people being better than others at applying said objective standards.

Student Question

Can B be wrong also because of the word “attempt”? I thought to myself that just because there was an attempt, then it doesnt really mean they actually fixed that specific encroachment issue? what is your take on this word whenever it appears?

Tutor Response

I see what you're saying, but I wouldn't take the word "attempt" as an indication that efforts have been unsuccessful. I'm hesitant to make generalizations about certain words because there are always exceptions, but in a context like this, I'd read "attempt" as basically saying: "someone has tried to protect deer habitats." Even if I don't know for sure that those efforts were successful, they might've been, so the fact that there were such efforts still might explain the discrepancy (if there weren't other deficiencies with (B), as noted in the posted explanation).

Student Question

I need help with this question. I just can’t grasp it in my head. I don’t understand how “random” strengthens the argument. Some correlation/causation visuals would be appreciated. (X→Y/X<— correlation→Y)

Tutor Response

I hear your confusion, but I don't think this question lends itself super well to diagramming, so bear with me while I try a different explanation. I want you to think back to science class, whenever you last took it (for me, that would be high school...nine years ago! I'm getting old.) Remember talking about the scientific method and randomized experiments? It's a concept that comes up a lot on the LSAT, both in LR and in RC. If you recall, the idea is that scientists take a group from a certain population or from the general population, and split them into two random groups: a control group and an experimental group. They have the experimental group do something specific (maybe it's taking a drug, maybe it's sleeping a certain number of hours per night, maybe it's...exercising regularly!) and then they compare some other variable (for example, as in this question, likelihood of death) between the two groups to see if there's a difference that they can attribute to the specific thing they had the experimental group do.

The randomness is important, because it controls for self-selection. What do I mean by that? Well, if scientists were to just go out into the world and seek out 100 people who exercise regularly and 100 people who don't, and then compare which group was less likely to die, they might find that the regular exercisers are less likely to die. But the problem is that there would probably be a lot of factors shared by the regular exercisers that might be the cause of the lowered likelihood to die, instead of the exercise itself. Maybe people who exercise regularly also tend to eat more vegetables, and it's actually eating vegetables that makes a person less likely to die. Maybe they tend to sleep more (so tired from all that working out) and that makes them less likely to die. Maybe people who exercise regularly also tend to wear sneakers, and good arch support is actually what makes a person less likely to die. There could be so many correlations with regular exercise that it's impossible to determine the causation of increased life expectancy.

If, however, scientists follow the scientific method and utilize randomness, they're controlling for those correlations. Now, I know that we grabbed a random group of people—some of which probably eat vegetables, some of which probably don't; some of which probably wear sneakers, some of which probably don't—which helps us isolate "exercises regularly" as a more likely connection to longer life expectancy. That's why randomization makes the argument in the stimulus stronger!

Student Question

Why is D not the correct answer? I kind of understood the video explanation, but I need a little more help with it. Thanks

Tutor Response

Take a closer look at the last sentence of the stimulus: "But even if this request is heeded, blackouts will probably occur unless the heat wave abates." That part I italicized is the reason why (D) is incorrect: it tells us that, even if residents reduce their air conditioner use, the blackouts will still probably occur. The question is asking us to figure out why that's the case. (D) skirts around the question by just saying that residents won't reduce their AC use, but that's not good enough: We're looking for a reason why the blackouts will continue even if residents do reduce their AC use. (B) gives us that: It tells us that most AC isn't even used by residents, anyway, which explains why the blackouts will probably persist despite residents' behavior.

Student Question

Why is D wrong and E correct? What can I keep in mind in the future for similar questions to avoid making the same mistake?

Tutor Response

First, let's get clear on a couple things. This is a weaken question, so our correct answer will probably take an alternative explanation and bolster it, or else do something to make the stimulus' explanation look implausible. What's the explanation in the stimulus? It's that the population must've remained relatively constant since 1973. What are we trying to explain? Why the CPUE has remained fairly constant since 1973. So we're looking for an answer choice that offers an alternative explanation for why the CPUE has remained fairly constant (something other than the shark population remaining constant). ​

Take a close look at D — try reading it slowly with a pause between each word (this is a drill I sometimes use with students to make sure they're not skipping over any details). Now, answer this question: What is the thing the quotas do not limit?

The number of individual sharks that can be taken, right?

Now, reread the stimulus slowly. Answer this question: What does the CPUE measure?

The number of individual sharks caught, right?

So (D) is actually telling us that we would expect most quotas to not have an impact on the CPUE! In other words, if quotas might've been an alternative explanation for the constant CPUE, (D) would eliminate (or at least weaken) that alternative explanation, thereby strengthening the argument in the stimulus. In this question, we want to weaken the argument, not strengthen it. (D) does the opposite of what we set out to find in our answer choice.

(E) does what we're looking for: It gives us an alternative explanation. What's that alternative explanation? Well, it's that technology has improved, which we would expect to lead to greater numbers of sharks captured, which would suggest that the population has actually declined rather than remaining constant, but the decline wouldn't be shown in the CPUE, because the more sophisticated technology makes up for the smaller quantity of sharks in the waters.

As far as avoiding mistakes like this in the future, a couple notes. Firstly, this is a very hard question! Remember that even top scorers miss very hard questions once in a while. Secondly, my advice is to read very carefully and keep in mind what your task is. When you see "weaken", automatically think "alternative explanation". Then, evaluate each answer choice to see if it builds up an alternative explanation for you. It's about practice, repetition, and careful, efficient, reading. You've got this!

Student Question

I gravitated towards (B) given the last paragraph, and “Those who took the inconvenient historical facts into consideration (40) did so only in order to refute the widely held deterministic view...”. Where do we see support for (D)?

Tutor Response

I think you may have lost track of what the question is asking! Remember that we're looking for an explanation of why late-nineteenth-century biographers of Watteau viewed the eighteenth century as "witty and amiable." Where do we learn that such biographers see the eighteenth century that way? At the end of the first paragraph: "By 1884, the bicentenary of (20) Watteau’s birth, it was standard practice for biographers to refer to him as “the personification of the witty and amiable eighteenth century.”" So that's a good place to start looking! Let's read the sentence right before that: What's it talking about? Well, it's describing Watteau's engravings, which depicted "aristocratic and would-be aristocratic eighteenth-century French society", an image that we're told was "widely imitated by other artists." Okay, so that's why the biographers saw the eighteenth century as "witty and amiable"! And that's what (D) says. Here's the takeaway from this question: Whenever you get quotation marks in a question stem, find the quote in the passage. Then, read the sentence before it and the sentence after it to contextualize yourself and get oriented. Answer choice (B) was definitely designed to trick you by distracting you from the question at hand: When you've just read a passage, and you see familiar language in an answer choice, sometimes it feels right to just go ahead and pick that familiar language as your answer. Your job is to keep the question in mind and avoid getting thrown off by tricky LSAT-writer games like (B)!

Student Question

The explanation for the correct answer calls the question stem a “sub conclusion”, which makes perfect sense, but the correct answer claims that it supports a different piece of text that is the “only conclusion.” So to clarify, a sub conclusion is not a conclusion? In my mind, I think of sub conclusion as part of the family of conclusion.

Tutor Response

I'm going to go ahead and be very honest with you here: I could come up with an explanation for the use of the phrase "the only," but I'd just be doing it to justify what I think is simply an odd choice by the LSAT writers. I'm sure they have their reasons and I'm sure their reasons are correct (they're far more ~learned~ than I am), but this is one of those very rare instances where I don't think it's worth our time to try to figure out their thought process. You're absolutely right that the phrase in question is a sub-conclusion, and that we generally consider sub-conclusions to be in the conclusion family. The word "only" is misleading here for exactly the reason you identified. So this is a moment for the one hard-and-fast, true-100%-of-the-time LSAT rule I've ever been able to discern: Your job is to pick the best answer of the five given. In this case, there isn't another answer that comes remotely as close as (B) to describing the role played by the key phrase. Even if we can argue against (B), it's our clear winner. The name of the game is recognizing that it's the best, giving a .5 second eye-roll at the phrasing, and moving along. I'm sorry I don't have a more satisfying answer, but I will say this as perhaps a bit of solace: Although I (of course) can't make any guarantees, I'd bet money that you won't come across a question with this level of ambiguity on test day, as they're very, very rare. Still, the takeaway here is a test-taking strategy one: when all else fails, figure out the best answer of the 5 as quickly as you can and move on!

Student Question

Per the explanation, E says that chlorine is the “most” damaging element, despite the passage's silence re the relative strength of different elements. We might assume that the passage focused on chlorine because it's most damaging, but there are other plausible reasons why they might have focused on chlorine. (Maybe chlorine's effects are better documented, or easier to explain to lay readers.)C seems better: The passage gives no precise date for the testimony, but it does tell us that the testimony came between 1974 and whatever year Molina was appointed to the NSF committee.If we take the question at face value, evaluating what “the passage most HELPS to answer,” then C is a fair pick. The passage helps us narrow the date of his testimony down to a fairly narrow window. That strikes me as more concrete help than what we get with E.Is there something I’m missing? A lesson I should take away from this one? Or should I just write it off as a bad question? Thanks!

Tutor Response

This is an incredibly annoying question, for exactly the reason you mentioned. It's caused quite a few LSAT students quite a lot of trouble! The best I can offer is this: If there were another constituent element of CFCs that is more damaging to the ozone than chlorine, this entire passage is super weird and misleading. Why would we focus so much on chlorine if there was another, more damaging element? It wouldn't make sense. There's an inference to be made to see why (E) is right, and inferences are uncomfortable, but it's the best of 5 annoying answers.

(C) is worse because, although we know that the year was sometime between 1974 and when Molina was appointed to the NSF committee, we have no idea what year Molina was appointed. We really don't have much to go off of—we don't even have a decade. There's just a bit less support for (C) than there is for (E).

In terms of lessons to take away, firstly, I (personally! not speaking for 7Sage or anyone else!) do think this is a bad question. Secondly, remember to use process of elimination critically: If you end up with two not-so-great answer choices, compare them to each other and figure out which one you have even an ounce more support for. Finally, remember to orient yourself on the explicitly stated --- strongly implied spectrum. "Most helps to answer" will place you toward "strongly implied", so you know you're probably not going to find a straight-up answer written in the text.

Student Question

For (C), why is it not relevant how many copies were sold? Wouldn’t it be the more popular = the more copies sold = exceeds expectations in sales?

Tutor Response

I see what you're saying! However, the popularity of the game actually doesn't tell us much about how much it will sell. Maybe no other games on the market are selling at all! Maybe the fact that this game is the most popular is already demonstrated by the sales meeting expectations and the rentals exceeding expectations! We need something that tells us that sales will increase beyond where they are now, to support the publisher's prediction that the sales will exceed expectations. (C) doesn't do that, because popularity doesn't mean that there will be a change in sales. The fact that it takes most players several weeks—longer than the rental period—however, suggests that the players who rented the game might want to buy it, and if that were to happen, then the rate of sales would exceed expectations.