Student Question:

My prephrase was 'at least some people have worked 40 or more years when they are at the age of 65'. I got this because the second reason says 'those who have worked 40 or more years to ...', and I equated it with those who reach 65 and continue to work. I wonder if my prephrase is correct?

Another more general question: for NA questions, I found myself usually come up with 'minor assumptions' not the correct answer. Could you please give me some suggestions on that?Thank you!

Tutor Response:

When it comes to your prephrase, I would say it is accurate, although not the correct answer for this question. It may not be explicitly stated, but the argument says mandatory retirement should exist to prevent those working 40+ years from taking all the opportunities. We know the retirement age is 65, therefore it makes sense that some 65 year olds have worked 40+ years. The some is crucial there however otherwise you'd pick A. Our prephrases won't be 100% accurate on these questions, we're just looking to get as close as we can.

When it comes to my prephrases, I generally want to find something that hasn't been mentioned in the stimulus yet. The link between 65 year olds and 40+ years of work is an implicit link in the stimulus, while E is a completely new concept of people working past age 65. I try to bring in an idea that is closely related to the stimulus but not something that is implied already.

Student Question: Is the conditional statement saying that all correctly addressed mail taking longer than 2 days is damaged purely a distraction when considering the correct answer choice?

Tutor Response:

In this case, the second premise —that correctly addressed mail takes longer only when it is damaged — does not serve a strong role in the argument. It is a rule we're supposed to analyze, but we don't need to use it to find the answer. You're correct in saying all it serves is as a distraction.

Student Question: I was under the impression that a new element in the conclusion, when it is the sufficient condition (intelligent), would then also be a sufficient condition in the premises as a right answer choice, especially in a “bridging” question like this. But instead, the right answer has intelligence as a necessary condition. Can someone help me understand?

Tutor Response:

I don't see the first premise as being a conditional, which seems to be where you're encountering problems. All that we know is is "conscious awareness" is not necessary for "complex behavior." This doesn't make it into a conditional - actually all we're being told is that there is no conditional relationship present.

With that in mind, I can see how you encountered confusion in attempting to diagram it. Instead we just want to link complex behavior to intelligence, which is only done in answers A and E. I'm initially put off by the "some" in E, as well as it talks about not being complex, which we're not interested in. This leads us to A, which properly establishes the link.

Student Question: Could E also undermine the argument? It says sometimes mammals die, what if the mammals that die aren’t the dinosaurs, or are only a couple of dinosaurs? I see how A undermines, but I felt like E is stronger

Tutor Response:

Answer choice E tells us that some mammals die from drug overdoses. Just like you said, what if the mammals dying from this aren't the dinosaurs? Or, what if all of them are the dinosaurs? We simply don't know. If this answer choice read something like "Mammals rarely/don't often die of drug overdoses from eating angiosperms," that might get us closer, but we still don't know if they even eat angiosperms.

For A I also like how it specifies "large mammals" getting us to a group a bit closer to dinosaurs. Finally, while we didn't know whether or not the dinosaurs ate angiosperms, we do know they are found in these contorted positions, so this answer choice is actually applicable to our theory.

Student Question:

I thought AC (C) was correct because it gives an explanation to why the census will see a decrease. Can you explain how that does not work?

Tutor Response:

I see where you're going with this, but you are combining two of the concepts in the stimulus. The stimulus says the address changes are filed with the post office or driver's license bureau, and using those, they can see how many people have entered and left. The census is a separate affair that might not be conducted via these governmental offices.

Think of them as two separate studies. If we assert that more people than we initially thought actually moved into Weston, they just didn't register, we might actually see the population increase. We don't know that the census uses the address changes as a way to count people, so their data may be more or less accurate.

Student Question:

I want to confirm my reasoning to eliminate E is correct. The stimulus says when the source of sugar is candy, the increase is noticeable (I equate this with 'substantially increase' in E). So we know from the stimulus that in one scenario there will be noticeable increase. E implies that the noticeable increase will happen only under one circumstance (candy), so this does not have to be true.

Tutor Response:

I fully agree with your reasoning. This is a fairly common answer option for NA questions, offering something that establishes exclusivity in some way. E.g., the only way for sugar to increase adrenaline is if it is from candy. This answer choice is only helpful if we have some sense of or need for exclusivity in the stimulus. This one explicitly allows for other options when it says "especially noticeable," as you pointed out.

Student Question:

What is a trick to know that consequences in this case relate to social benefit? Also, could you please elaborate on why E is wrong, and A is right?

Tutor Response:

In this question, we can think of consequences as the things that occur as a result of our criminal sentencing policy. Eg. if I say "murder always = a life sentence," and I see murder rates decreasing, that is a consequence of my new policy. That's the same here, where they justify the first approach by saying a punishment is justified in terms of the benefit to society, eg, are the consequences of that sentence going to be positive for society? I don't have a specific trick, other than working through what we're looking at a consequence of, in this case the punishment, which the consequence is a social benefit.

As to E, this is the opposite of what we're looking for. The second view, the retributivists, only care about "fair" or "appropriate" punishments; it explicitly says they don't care about the social benefit, eg, consequences.

For A, we have the opposite. I feel comfortable saying "appropriate" can be equated to "fair," as they are being used in the same way. This matches perfectly with the last sentence of paragraph 2.

Student Question:

I still do not understand why answer (C) is wrong— us reading more than they did a century ago directly attacks the argument of the conclusion. I am confused why we are attacking the premise rather than the conclusion?

Tutor Response:

I'm worried that you're making an unwarranted assumption. I agree, if C said "The number of books sold today is larger than it was a century ago because people read more today," it would make a good answer choice. However, it does not say that. We don't know if these people are reading the books they purchase or just leaving them on shelves.

Furthermore, how many books are sold compared to the number of people buying them? If the number of books purchased has increased by 100 books a year, but the population doubled, it would actually strengthen our conclusion. We don't know how much "larger" is, while "considerably less" is much stronger and applies to everyone who could potentially read a book.

Student Question:

Hi, I have question with AC (E). Like E, if there’s an argument saying “There’s evidence of could be A and evidence of could be B. Therefore, it could be both A and B”, is it a flawed argument?

Tutor Response:

This is an interesting question and is highly contextual. That being said, in most cases, the LSAT will give us binary situations, like the car example. That being said, if you remove that binary, sure, there could be actual examples. For instance, if one witness saw the thief wearing a red shirt, and another witness said the shirt was black, you might conclude the thief had a multicolored shirt or changed his clothes.

For this flaw, I want to identify if the situation has room for multiple options. Obviously, two people cannot drive a car at the same time. That's why I want to identify if it "could" be possible for both to happen simultaneously to assert this flaw.

Student Question:

I don’t really understand this stimulus, in terms of what it needs, which J.Y. posits as a rule, which is A. I thought A was already in the stimulus.

I already that the stimulus set up a conditional (a rule, that is), which is why I picked D, because D seemed to trigger the rule that was already present in the argument.

Tutor Response:

This is a pretty standard trap on SA questions. The stimulus will assert that something "should" be some way, without using a premise to establish that. If I say, "Josh drives too quickly; he should have to pay a fine," I also would have to establish that driving too quickly is a violation of the law; otherwise, why should he pay a fine? In this case, answer choice A serves as our law. Without that, we have no reason to say people who reasonably expect damage should pay for it, even if we make this assumption in everyday life. The stimulus references this rule, but only by saying Ms. Sandstrom was aware of the damage it could cause, not that she should have to pay for it.

AC D would help to reinforce the principal in A, but we don't need to reinforce it. We are completely fine with the conditional at the end of the stimulus. If Josh DOES speed, he should get a fine. On the other hand, if he doesn't speed, he doesn't need to get a fine. The stimulus doesn't say Ms. Sandstrom 100% should pay the fine, just that if the Mendels are correct, she should pay the fine. It doesn't help our conclusion to say "the Mendels are correct," instead, we're trying to reinforce the rule the stimulus is referring to.

Student Question

I don’t understand how to eliminate wrong answer choices. Further, the explanation video is not very helpful to me.

Tutor Answer:

As this is a parallel flaw question, our first goal is to spot the flaw in the stimulus. As I see it, the flaw is trying to challenge a definition for perception because the opposite of the word, imperceptible, would have similar qualities (having beliefs about them). This is a pretty easy flaw if you simplify it. The opposite of black is white; however, they are both colors. The opposite of driving fast is driving slow; however, both can result in traffic tickets.

To eliminate answers, I would look for a definition being invalidated by an antonym with a shared quality. The correct answer will include this.

A. Does this same thing as the stimulus, by contrasting "art" and "not art," and a shared trait in aesthetic reactions.

B. Here, we don't have anything about a shared trait or an antonym. If I saw something about "not obligation," I would be more convinced.

C. This flaw is something like asserting that some problems cannot be solved, therefore preparation cannot be accurately defined as preparing for problems. This shares the same issue of lacking an antonym.

D. This shares the same problem as above; we don't have an antonym.

E. Same here. The flaw is that just because we cannot understand something entirely doesn't mean we cannot investigate it.

Student Question

The stimulus says “when there is another job available”. So, I thought that we don’t know whether the other job is available or not so I wasn’t sure how D) matches the stimulus argument.

Tutor Response

You might be misreading AC D. D specifies that there is a choice between two jobs. We can assume this means he has three options: Job A, Job B, or declining both jobs. This matches the stimulus where there are three options: Coffee A, Coffee B, or neither.

In general, we're looking for a structure that says "A or B, not A, so if one was picked, it was B." This mirrors D.

Student Question

I wanted to confirm that “often” can’t be extended in the way “most” can. Though theoretically it can mean really anything from one-time to every-time, it can be abstracted to mean a little more than sometimes but less than most.

Tutor Answer

On the LSAT, there are firm rules around these terms.

Most = more than 50% and less than 100%.

Some = more than 0% and less than 100%.

Often falls into the "some" category. That means it can overlap with most; however, we don't know, so we cannot make any inference aside from more than 0% and less than 100%.

Student Question

I totally understand the bridge that D creates and how it triggers the conclusion. But I am so confused how, if B were NOT true, it would not completely wreck the foundation of the argument we’ve created? What am I missing? Is it that I am treating this as a NA rather than SA?

Tutor Answer

I completely agree with your analysis. If you're approaching this question as if it were an NA question, you'll encounter problems. This comes from the fact that SA answers don't have to be true. There can be a long list of sufficient conditions. For example, if my conclusion is "the car rolls forward," either "I press on the gas pedal" or "the car is on a hill and the brakes failed" would be sufficient for the car to move. I like to think of SA questions as if they are strengthening questions, while NA questions are closer to MBT questions.

As to this question specifically, we can look at the conclusion to find what we need. The conclusion introduces a new concept of "no life," suggesting I need to find an AC that aligns with this concept. You can see that B doesn't introduce anything about life. Only D and E introduce this concept, with E presenting it as "Methane -> Life," whereas we're seeking "no life" in the required position.

The key, however, lies in approaching the question correctly.

Student Question:

I had selected E because I looked at the last sentence of the passage and thought that the underlying cause of the whole passage was that none of the branches of government (Crown, Parliament) had specific powers - and that was what the Author was trying to say. I understand why B is correct but can you provide further explanation for why E is not? Thank you!

Tutor Response:

​ I see where some of your confusion may be coming from. This question asks us to focus on the principal and argument that the author is using in the last paragraph. This results in answer choice B for a few reasons. Where the author says, "But such scholars neglect," he is imposing his view. His primary concern is that the solution proposed by the scholars above merely shifts the problem to another branch, rather than addressing the root issue, e.g., AC B.

E is a tempting answer, especially if you are rushed, as it mirrors the example posed at the end of the last paragraph. That being said, it is just that, an example. The example is not the principle; instead, it is an example the author is using to display his principle. This is an example of one branch passing the problem to another, rather than a principle that requires delineating the powers of each branch of government in every case.

Student Question: Can “not all” be translated into “some” for lawgic? Because that’s what I did for PT152.S2.Q19 AC “C” and then I got the question wrong.

Tutor Response: Here's my diagram for the stimulus. Note, I took the contrapositive of the second sentence, as that is how we establish our complete conditional chain. I agree that there is a "some" in the first sentence and the conclusion.

S1. Tarantula <-> Good Pets

S2. Poison Fangs -> /Good Pet

S2. Good Pet -> /Poison Fangs

C. Tarantula <-> /Poison Fangs

My diagram of A is as follows:

S1. Strawn Poetry -> /Regular Meter

S1. Regular Meter -> /Strawn Poetry

S2. Poems in Collection <-> Regular Meter

C. Poems in Collection <-> /Strawn Poetry

You can see this matches what we're looking for; however, to be tricky, the LSAT makers switched the order of the sentences. The conditional still works the same way, though, just in this case, the "some" statement is in the second sentence, and the "none" statement is in the first sentence.

My diagram for C is as follows:

S1. Strawn Poetry <-> Regular Meter

S2. Collection -> /Strawn Poetry

C. Collection <-> /Regular Meter

This one gives us several disconnected pieces and is unfortunately flawed logic. For the conclusion to be true, we would need a premise telling us "All poetry with a regular meter is written by Strawn." Without this, we don't know anything about poetry written by other authors, meaning we cannot make any inferences about it!

Aside from that, it just does not match the conditional chain we are looking for in the answer.

Student Question

I now get why D is correct, but I’m still stuck on B. I thought it was right because the stimulus says that the scientists believed it came from deep carbon deposits “dating from the earths formation,” doesn’t this imply that the petrol had to date around the earth’s formation like B says? Also, for D how do we know living beings deep inside the earth’s crust is as deep as the deep carbon deposits. Isn’t “deep” relative?

Tutor Response

I see where this question is confusing you, and I agree it can be a bit of a confusing stimulus. I think you might be attempting to strengthen the scientist's view from the second sentence, who theorize that deep carbon from the formation of Earth created carbon, not fossils. Answer B seems to do this by saying living organisms originated after the formation of Earth. Even if this is true, however, we have no evidence that the carbon deposits at Earth's formation created petroleum. For all we know, aliens came down and put it there for us! Remember, negative evidence against one theory doesn't create positive evidence for the alternative theory.

As to your question about "deep being relative." Yes, this is a common problem on the LSAT. When can you safely make assumptions? In this case I would say because the stimulus and the AC both use the same adjective, deep, it is safe to assume they're at the same level. If D used a different adjective, or simply said "there's bacteria inside the Earth's crust," that might set off red flags to me, but if the same question uses the same adjectives, I think it is fair to assume they're being used to the same intensity. (Eg. Deep means the same amount of depth in both uses).

Finally, answer choice D is the only one that focuses on weakening the stimulus's conclusion, that the theory is refuted. Remember, on a weakening question, I want to drive a wedge between the stimuli and the conclusion. In this case, D serves the role of an alternative hypothesis, creating that wedge!