@superchillasian I was between A & E too. I ultimately chose E because A was about 19th century painters and what they later did, while the question is asking what happened to painting "since 19th century". The passange only talks about 19th century impressionism -> modern abstract, so it must be that we need to describe how we got from impressionism to abstract. A) only talks about the impressionists in the 19th century.

Sidenote, not to be nitpicky, "other subject matter" is talked about in the last sentence of the passage "painters had more freedom to vary their subject matter", basically not restricted to just portraits which is what led to abstract. Though this is talking about more modern painters than the 19th century impressionists, which is why A is wrong.

So the premise is "Since I don't know ulterior motive, I don't know the morality". Conclusion is "Therefore I should look at consequences for morality".

I was tempted to try and justify "If you want morality -> need to know consequences". However, you need to bridge the first gap, which is "How come if you don't know ulterior motive then you don't know morality?"

So you need something that says if you don't know ulterior motive then you don't know morality. A) says intention, where's the ulterior motive??? The tricky part is piecing that intentions include ulterior motives, it even includes internal motives, ultrustic motives, good motives bad motives etc.

So if we replace "Intention" for "Ulterior Motives", A) because much more appealing suddenly.

"Ulterior Motives are indepspensible for evaluating morality" aka "if you want to know motive, then you need to know Ulterior Motives" or "if you don't know Ulterior Motives, then you don't know motive." The latter is exactly the bridge that we spotted.

The hard part here is recognizing that you don't need to bridge consequence with morality, because it's fundemntally rejecting the initial assumption of "ulterior motive -> morality", for all we care the conclusion could be "Therefore we need to look at oranges instead of morality." The issue is why doesn't looking at ulterior motives work.

@LSATgoat Last sentence first paragraph.

Just because the newspaper cannot cover ALL/EVERY (100) stories adequately on both sides, it could cover SOME (20) important adequately on both sides.

The difference is that the premises says every one, not any.

@J.Y.Ping Sorry, I meant it as a joke as in there's no resting on the LSAT grind lol.

@Tumptytumtoes It doesn't talk about Modern art, it just says that she was an early modernist. A person practicing modernism is a modernist.

I know both "rest" and "day" but what does "rest day" mean? Resting a whole day??

@babachanianaren905 I think you mean active lawyer. Not all JDs are active lawyers. Many law professors don't have a bar license, or it expired since they didn't do required CLEs.

@DavidKindberg So apparently modern is a style of art like "classical, romantic, rennaissance, abstract etc". While contemporary is saying "artists currently alive".

@trniekras572 Well it's still looking at the % within each group. So even if one group had 10000, it's still 20% so 2000 ppl. Whereas 36% of 100 would be 36. The sheer difference in number doesn't mean anything since you are comparing the "effectiveness" rate within each group. If you're measuring "effectiveness" based on self-reports than you would have to compare the % of what each group says.

Whereas C) is basically saying you can't compare these two groups, because it's not a difference in each group but instead it's one big group and you just have quitters. It basically means you don't actually have an experimental group vs. control group, because your experimental group is just quitters from the control group or vice versa.

@abramyansemail505 It's because it doesn't talk about the public perception anywhere. So even if the author thinks this is the best way to address judicial impartiality, the public may still see it differently. Since we don't know we can say that it will improve public perception

@JackHilton The negation test is usually used for Necessary assumptions, this is a sufficient assumption. Negating sufficient assumptions don't always produce the correct answer.

For example, Bob can buy a $20 pizza. A) Bob has $1000 in the bank. This answer is suffcient to the stim.

If we negate A), then we get Bob doesn't have $1000 in the bank, but that doesn't destroy the arguement. Because Bob could have $200, satisifying the negation test while not destroying the stim.

@nnechi95

P1 Contra: If math prop > not proven by obs

P2 Contra: if possible to know if true > not math prop

But P2 is not actually a premise, it's a conclusion because the stim says "It follows that..." which is basically "Therefore", a conclusion indicator. So if you see it as the conclusion, do you see the jump from:

Premise: If math prop > not proven by obs (A > B)

Conclusion: If math prop > not possible to know (A > C)

So what they are trying to say is A > B > C therefore A > C. So that means the missing link is B > C. Which would be: " if not proven by obs > not possible to know" or "if possible to know > proven by obs".

E) is saying exactly "if you want to know, then you need to prove by obs" because of the indicator "requires". Which fits the gap above.

@Jsonf Yeah after discussion with others I have come to understand it as "Modern age" as the style of art like "Classical" or "Romantic", while contemporary is the time and age of an artist. So you can be a contemporary classical artist if you are alive making art in the classical style.

@haksyona I think the passage mentioned Mali artists to show that they don't really have a concept of fake through the traditional sense of "imitation of an original work", as long as it holds the same function.

@Jsonf But it says modern age of faking began during the Italian Renaissance in which Michelangelo was apart of. If it says modern age faking, can you not infer from that it is contemporary?

So doesn't it say that modern day faking began with Michelangelo and that he inspired imitators? Would an artist from the modern age of faking not be contemporary??

Looking back now, E makes the most sense. If the splitters primarily cared about preserving a variety of species, they would focus on endangered ones. The most endangered species would be the ones grouped in by others, like if 100 golden egg laying geese were bundled up with 1 million Candadian geese as one species, they'd want to split them first in order to save the golden geese.

Whereas if there were 500k of the gray and black sparrow each, because neither of them are individually endangered, they would not prioritize them. Hence, despite should've been split, they aren't.

Which means all the species being split are the ones endangered, therefore more protected species.

I thought the difference was in market reaction speed, very fast in A and much slower (due to manipulation in B), hence a digital camera vs. old fim.

This is insane, I missed the "FOR"!!!!!

@ClaireKIM Why did you just copy someone else's comment lol, and just half of it.

@lukerldavis280 No, for a valid inference we need A -s-> B -> C to get to A -s-> C. So in this case:

/eccentric -s-> effective -> good com

therefore,

/eccentric -s-> good com.

Some noneccentric are good communicators. The answers don't have this but it is a valid inference.

It's insane I didn't see the word unsurprising....

@lsattaker264 Yes but we don't know if there are other Spanish Ballards that also deal with border regions, perhaps in the 1500s there was a popular ballard that was mainly about Spain and Portugal, where the Mexicans got their inspiration from. The issue is the passage doesn't talk about its uniqueness among ballards.

E) is correct because we know there are suviving complete corridos, which means there are ones that are surviving but not complete, and we still know they are corridos. Otherwise the only corridos known to us would be the "complete" ones and we wouldn't need to distinguish between "complete" and "incomplete".

I thought of this as businesses are buying 60% of new cars, which means individuals are buying 40%. Only the rich individuals can afford cars so that's only 5% of their income. While 25 years ago indviduals were buying 80% of the new cars, and even the non-rich could afford cars so on average it was like 20% of the average income. This suggests that in the current age, only rich could afford cars and therefore the average price to income ratio actually decreases.