Ryan,

This helped greatly! Thanks for your thorough explanation!

#help

Can someone please help me understand what AC D is saying? I know why B is the correct answer choice, but I'm having such a hard time understanding AC D.

#help

I chose A on this question, but I understand why A can be the wrong answer. I interpreted AC A as that the argument did not seek to explain why anarchy would be any better. When I first finish reading the stimulus, my thought was: "Okay, I see why totalitarianism is bad, but how do I know anarchy is not any worse?" which is what A latched on to me. I guess when I read the argument, I gave too little weight to the last sentence of the stimulus, which renders AC A factually inaccurate.

#help

So false dichotomy can be a logical flaw in LSAT? I thought we were supposed to accept premises as they are. How is this principle compatible with AC E in this question?

#help

I see your point, and I think it's fair.

After reading your comment I went back and re-read the conclusion, and I realized that there's a word "mainly" used in the stimulus to attribute the phenomena to A/C, so E would not be an effective weakening answer.

Thank you.

I'm currently in South Korea, and seeing your profile name gives me an affinity.

Good luck on the LSAT

#help

I’m 100% positive that this question is ill written and should be removed. Here’s the reason:

The conclusion only states when driving, “conversing on cell phone” is more dangerous than “with a passenger in the vehicle.”

There’s five possibilities wherein one can say X is more dangerous than Y.

1. X is more danger than normal, while Y is equal to normal;

2. X is equal to normal while Y is less dangerous than normal;

3. X is more dangerous than normal while

4. X and Y are both more dangerous than normal when X is way more dangerous than Y

5. X and Y are both less dangerous than normal when Y is way less dangerous than X

There’s no more scenario under which it can be said X is more danger than Y. We’ll say that more dangerous than normal can be called “increase”, and less dangerous than normal can be called “decrease.”

Therefore, when the conclusion say X is more danger than Y, it is not necessary to assume that X increases danger, when I can assume Y decreases danger (or, any of the above mentioned scenarios). To put in the language of this question: talking to driver (over the phone) do not necessarily need to increase danger for it to be more dangerous than have a passenger in the vehicle as long as if passenger in the vehicle can provide helpful warnings that can reduce danger.

This is why answer C, as it currently states, is not a necessary assumption. It’ll be a better choice if it reads: “speaking to the driver during a difficult driving situation does not reduce the risk of accident, unless this speaker is providing helpful warnings”

#help

#help

#help

#help

I understood AC "C" as saying that the other most popular news station in the area got popular is because of their investigative news report, and therefore not because of their reliability and usefulness of their forecast. I thought this strengthened the conclusion.

I understand why AC A is the right answer now, but I have two questions regarding this question.

1. If C reads straight up: "Those most popular stations in the area is popular not because of their reliability and usefulness of their forecast." Would this statement strengthen the conclusion?

2. Was it right to infer that "Those most popular stations in the area is popular not because of their reliability and usefulness of their forecast." from answer C's wording?

Thanks in advance.

Concluded that two phenomenon must cause each other based on that they merely happen at the same time.

LOL

LOL.

I appreciate your kind heart for trying to make sense of this question, but here's why your logic seems entertaining to me.

If, by your logic, that "Indian," or "Canadian" in your parallel example, only were meant in a proprietary sense and doesn't need the racist assumption people's been discussing about, and that Indian curry and Singaporean curry are no different before they are owned by a particular group, then, at what point after Indian Singaporeans purchursed their curry do their curry mutates and contain higher turmeric? Does Indian have some sort of superpower to change their curry nutrients after they are bought?

For this question to work, you have to assume that Indian Singaporean and other Singaporean eat different curry.

What a pun!

LOL.

Your ability to conduct reach and so accurately states your opinion clearly mark the traits of a great lawyer!

P.S.

Yea, this question is some BS.

I agree with your premise, however, your conclusion is flawed in that you assume 7 Sage should be the one responsible to rectify a LSAT question that is morally wrong, when in fact, it should be LSAC.

If you assume the principle that all LSAT preparation agencies have a moral duty to prevent the spread of morally flawed LSAT questions by acting on what they can control, then your conclusion may be justified.

As your argument currently stands, it has many unstated necessary assumptions.

Okay, for any who read this reply, I have two questions for you: 1. Jonathan and Belasharma disagree over _; 2. Jonathan replied to Belasharma's argument in what method of reasoning?

I agree with you. Feeling warm or cool is perceived by human, and there is no objective cool or warm "energy," but are all thermal quantity, i.e. inferred radiation, while thermal insulation, insulate compartments and prevent this effect of radiation.

So, to put it plainly, thermal insulation material would keep things closer to its original temperature, not warmer or cooler.

Therefore, E does seem to weaken the argument by providing an alternative cause.

lol, same thing happened to me.

Please disregard my question, as an ESL, I thought supermarket tabloids includes "piles of laundry and soda bottles."

#help

Also, it seems to me that the notion of "quality of the stimuli" in the correction answer choice B is unrooted in the stimulus. We don't know much about "quality" from the stimulus.

#help

I'm still a bit confused as to why AC C is wrong. Isn't Vernon saying that supermarket tabloids should be considered stimulating for creativity?

JY literally said "summoning my inner Sicilians" lol.

I'm an ESL, so I thought probably everyone else understood what "points up" means. Reading this comment section assured me a lot.

Thanks guys!

Same. I'm still convinced that C can be the right answer choice. Noting losing or stealing books doesn't necessarily entail that those books will be returned on time. What if people just all tend to procrastinate returning books for whatever reason?

But I have to admit that D is a better choice because the second objective of D is about having employee involved in the process of getting a new and larger warehouse. Even if the existing warehouse were expended to become a new larger warehouse and meet its employees' desires, it might not incorporate employees in the planning process, which is the true second object.

Another way to look at the question is that, according to the conclusion of the stimulus "positive change in patient's relationships with other people" is strongly indicated as a necessary condition for psychotherapists to help their patients heal, however, answer choice C (AC C) put "change (in) relationship with other people" as a sufficient factor alone to start healing. This is broader than the required assumption.

If answer choice C states that "Those psychotherapy patients who do not change their relationship with other people will not find any relief of their troubles," then AC C would be absolutely correct.

You are absolutely right! I was getting frustrated and even mad with all people who got tangled up in the misleading explanation in the video on answer choice A.

Brillant explanation! Especially on AC B! I eliminated B for the very 1st reason JY mentioned. But never would I have identified three mistakes in this single AC B.

I struggled with the exact same thing! I still eventually chose AC E, but it took me almost 3min on this question.

Too bad the video didn't really explain this part well. The stimulus made it crystal clear that patients exhibiting high "H" level before they get diagnosed with Alzeimer's. Answer E doesn't impact the argument.

A better answer would be "Alzeimer's early symptom (often before patient can be diagnosed) is an increase in "H" level in the blood"