If, among all business managers, the most overconfident amongst them are the ones who started the business, then that supports the conclusion that those most overconfident are to start a business in the face of bad odds.

The mentioning of the entrepreneurs, or that entrepreneurs are more confident than business managers, is irrelevant. It's a red herring.

The conclusion is that those more overconfident are most likely to start a business in face of bad odds. You can selectively look at the most to least overconfident in just the business managers alone to find this correlation.

What if the computer program was way too sensitive and just said most everything was a heart attack?

This would show bias in that cases that were heart attacks were more likely to be correctly predicted by the computer, but that those that were not heart attacks are less likely to be correctly predicted.

The difference between (C) and (D) is that (C) leaves some wiggle room.

If C were not true, that the knowledge was incomplete, it could still be true that, upon discovering all fossils, that the oldest bird fossils predate the dinosaur ones.

But (D) leaves no wiggle room. The argument rests its conclusion on the fact that fossils can relay the relative date of origin of a species. If they can't then we have no clue how old any of the species actually are.

This is causal reasoning.

The stim says doing A causes B. (Social Resp. --> Power).

• AC (E) is wrong because the stim says retaining power through SR is only a matter of how long you can keep it. Aka it's not guaranteed forever by being Socially Resp.

• AC (C) is wrong because the speed of erosion is not enough to break the causal connection between SR and P. Even if SR can increase P by 0.00000% in one instance, and 1000% in another, there's still (arguably) causation.

• AC (B) is correct because it shows that SR, in of itself, does not cause more power, but merely suggests the belief one is being Socially Resp. causes more power. 

Remember in any causal flaw, it is:

1) B causes A

2) there is no relationship between A and B

3) C causes A, B, or both

This is C. The belief of SR causes Power, not SR. Or C causes B.

The issue (at least in terms of AC B) is that the coach misconstrues the meaning of critic's charge of 'unprofessional' to mean not of professional-league caliber, not that they were being TOO unprofessional (rude) as opposed to just a little (rude)

Professional Definitions:

• (1) Polished, kind, presentable; John acted professionally by excusing himself to sneeze.

• (2) of top caliber--a 'pro'; Messi is a professional soccer player.

The coach says that his players are of professional caliber because actual pros do this certain thing, even more so, so his team must be pros.

This is sneaky because it sounds like he's saying that "well, it's okay that we do it because other people who are more pro than us do it". But the argument never says that something that pros do is okay for amateurs to do. The argument also never states the coach's team is not 'unprofessional' (amateur).

And AC D is tricky in that it almost sounds like it resolves that. But AC D is about placing blame. The coach is not placing blame in the argument.

Basically... If a claim is 1) true 2) a tautology, and 3) not of scientific interest or interesting...

Then we can 100% say that a claim being true is not sufficient to cause a claim to be interesting, because we have 'claim true' present, in of itself, but 'scientifically interesting' is still not attained.

Basically (lawgic version)...

P:

A.

B.

------

C:

~C.

~D.

We can further infer that A is not sufficient for D. ~(A-->D)

This is because A is independently stated, and D is not attained.

I think the explanation is wrong.

The real weakening power of (C) is that it shows exporting the pesticides does not INCREASE risk to consumers, because they are already being consumed anyways by consumers. Allow me to illustrate:

Country X uses harmful pesticide A on its food. Country X then imports that food to the US. In the US, Consumers then eat the food from Country X tainted with pesticide A. They are harmed.

Now:

the US manufacturers harmful pesticide A. the US uses harmful pesticide A on its food. US, Consumers then eat the food from tainted with pesticide A. They are harmed.

What difference would it make if the US manufactured the pesticide? The people are still eating the same pesticide contaminated food. It does not increase their risk.

Defending my take is the premise that the pesticides are often used on products imported to the US. Therefore it does not matter if they are domestic or foreign sourced. The food coming in probably has the pesticide. The conclusion isn't whether the US exporting and then importing generally harms consumers, it's whether it increases harm.

I think in a way, as J.Y. describes, the flaw here is that it's justifying a powerful conclusion with provable premises. So you need a powerful assumption (which acts as a powerful premise).

People sometimes sing, and sometimes when singing they are happy. But sometimes, when they are not feeling good, they don't sing. Therefore singing is never a good way to ensure happiness.

Assumption: Singing, even while feeling good, will never make you not happy.

Basically, because the argument is saying that because SOMETIMES you don't feel good, you don't sing. What if you still can sing when you don't feel good, and it makes you happy? Or what if even when you do feel good, you sing, it makes you unhappy? Sometimes implies the opposite could be true. We basically have to say that, the opposite, will never be true.

Negating the assumption is basically saying that, yeah, sometimes singing, even while not feeling good, can make you happy. See how that destroys the "singing is never good to ensure happiness?"

Think of it this way:

the principle states that it is okay to do A, but only if it is not at the expense of B.

But then it says that someone is doing something that falls under A, and is doing so at the expense of B. Therefore it's not okay.

Now hold on a minute... how do we know that A is actually at the expense of B?

Well... the author is assuming it. They are assuming that this instance of A is at the expense of B.

What if Megan is reading 1 page a day? That sounds frequent. What if it's before bed when she's not even socializing? Are either really performed at the detriment of socialization? Not really...

Stim concludes (powerfully) that all commitments are morally neutral.

It then provides just two examples to support that... Obviously not powerful enough to prove the conclusion true.

But with Justify questions, we have to assume the conclusion is valid.

What would make it valid?

Well, if even just one, or two, examples of a commitment is undeserving of praise, then they prove ALL commitments are morally neutral.

misunderstand =/= not concerned. rip (and duh)

I was stuck between (a) and (c).

I chose (c) because I am stupid.

I have never felt more stupid the second I read an explanation.

I was stuck between (c) and (e). I did not recognize in the stim that Jeff was referencing all scientific experimentation on animals, not just those that cause harm.

He says that banning experimentation in general should be included to all mammals.

I chose (c) because I felt it matched the lawgic, but I moved too fast, and didn't realize that (e) did as well.

In this one, a first study shows a correlation, while the other two do not. Those in the first study were also younger.

The Doctor concludes if there is a correlation, (not that there is or isn't a correlation) it disappears with age.

The doctor is attempting to reconcile the discrepancy by saying:

"well they were youngest in the first study. I'm not sure yet if there is actually a correlation, but if there is, it seems to be that it's because they were younger in the first study. So the discrepancy must disappear with age, because they didn't see it in the other two studies, when they were older.

If it were not for the doctor's conclusion, this would be an RRE question, where his conclusion is the answer.

But because it is weaken, then we have to show that the other two studies might have actually shown the same correlation as the first, breaking down his conclusion that the effect disappears with age.

A big point of confusion for me was that I didn't wrap my head around the fact they were eating sea creatures during the voyage in the water between the islands. I assumed it was a population coming from the mainland to an island which didn't have land animals.

Anyways..

(C) is basically saying "yeah they painted some land animals :))) hehe" (some = many)

It doesn't deny they DIDN'T paint sea creatures.

If it said they painted only land animals, then it would strengthen it, and be wrong.

For (A), we always assume statements are powerful unless otherwise. (aka, if it clarified mostly land animals, or many land animals).

(D) suggests they brought land animal meat from where they sailed from.

(E) suggests that they paintings weren't even done by the population in question (those traveling back and forth)

The argument could be rearranged this way:

Satellites hurt the ozone layer. This is enough of a reason to stop using them. It is no surprise that Environmentalists fail to realize this.

What fact would make that a not surprising?

Well... that people often overlook negatives in stuff they care about. (the reasonable assumption by LSAT standards is that environmentalists care about the environment, of which the ozone is apart of)

Adding this is like super duper useful because I can see questions I got right, but ultimately was indecisive!

This is by far the worst question I have ever seen on the LSAT.

"conveniently" describes the authors attitude??? Is the question asking whether the specific word in the quotes does, or the sentence as a whole???

Absolute vs Relative is a common wrong answer type.

Example: Fresh parsley is more tasty than dried parsley when used in Italian cooking. Therefore, using fresh parsley ensures Italian cooking will be tasty as compared to dried parsley.

The flaw here is the same as in this Stimulus... What if dried parsley can still make it tasty? This answer would work if the conclusion said 'fresh parsley ensures Italian cooking will be TASTIER'.

When you are making comparative answers (better, worse, tastier, healthier, etc, you are on a scale from most to least of that thing. There is no absolute.

That's the flaw here. They say you are healthy being slightly overweight as opposed to HEALTHIER.

no way its literally the first sentence

when it rains the grass is wet, so it must have rained because the grass it wet ahh question

SIMPLE EXPLANATION:

This is the same argument as: When it rains, the grass is wet. Therefore, when the grass is wet, it has rained because every time it rained the grass was wet. ... well no... what if I used a garden hose?

Notice how the premise is also the conclusion here. IT is in the stim, too.

What if there was a ruler not concerned with the well being of the people, and the government DID NOT fail during their tenure? That is entirely possible within the scope of the stimulus. Not every time the ruler was bad, the gov failed"

It does not infer that bad rulers always lead to failure, because of the above. It only draws this conclusion that

"caring about the welfare of the people is sufficient for a gov's success

because, as the commentator cites, when the gov has fallen, it was ruled by a person who didn't care.

Allow me to simply translate D for you:

We don't have an obligation to not cut down trees to anyone/thing else (ex: a forest, the law, posterity, God, your mother, etc, etc...)

If this were not true, then we would not be allowed to cut down trees. The argument only says being obliged to trees to not cut down trees is not sufficient to... not cut down trees.

But what if we are obliged to the law to not cut down trees? Well, then we cannot cut down trees regardless of what we have as obligations to trees themselves.

The flaw here really is that the argument is equivocating the powerful statement "people will die unless they work shorter hours" with the less powerful "these people's work is life-or-death in nature" in concluding resident physicians should work less hours.

By doing that, the argument assumes there's no reason they need to work those long hours.

Which of the below is an assumption required for the author's implied conclusion that 7Sage should introduce a week-long subscription extension?

(A) That prospective exam takers, hoping to efficiently spend their money, would pay for an extension to study right up to their exam date.

(B) That the LSAT exam occurs only within the first week of the month, and 7sage offers only a monthly billing cycle starting the first of each month.

(C) That 7Sage has the programmers to institute such a change, if they so decided to institue such a change to their billing practices.

(D) That 7Sage offers a yearly-subscription

(E) The author is taking the LSAT

Correct answer: (B). The assumption that the LSAT exam occurs within the first week of the month, and that 7Sage's only billing cycle is monthly, starting on the first day of a month, is crucial. Had the assumption NOT been true, that the LSAT does not occur within the first week of the month, or that 7Ssage does NOT offer only a monthly subscription starting the first of a month, then a billing cycle could coincidentally end the day of an exam, or vice-versa, or 7sage could offer other subscription models that allow for such flexibility.