Hey there,

That is correct! "Event if" is a necessary condition, meaning that its occurrence is an absolute requirement for the sufficient to exist.

Hey there,

We know very little information about what “good” compost is. We know it is between 40% and 60% organic matter and is a dark brown color. Only knowing the percentage of organic matter does not tell us if it meets the color requirement.

Hope this helps!

Hey there,

It can be dangerous to depend on hard and fast rules with the LSAT. It's important to consider all of these words in the context they are used. We could have "but" introduce an opposing position or some special consideration that should be made for the current condition.

It is great to have an eye for these potential indicators, but make sure you are identifying the purpose they play in their specific context.

Hey there,

That is correct! The contrapositive is the most clear to be here - if something is true, we know it is not any sort of mathematical proposition. Either way you write it out is correct.

Hey there,

Good question. "Substantial" is definitely a fuzzy word with different subjective meanings. Rather than trying to put a percent on it, I summarize the sentence down to the things that we cannot interpret (things that must be true). The last sentence to me reads as "there is at least some causation relationship between high school dropouts and military recruitment."

You're right in saying the argument goes further and says the relationship is strong, but it's kind of a red herring here. If our conclusion is that some sort of causal relationship exists between the variables at all, the correct answer choice would point out a situation where we have the opposite -- perhaps, recruitment numbers going up despite college dropouts going down. That's what we see in answer choice C.

I recommend not getting too hung up on individual words. You are correct in saying we can interpret it in different ways. The test writers are counting on us to get caught up in the details rather than focusing on the overall summary of the argument.

I hope that helps -- please reply if you have any other questions!

Hey there,

There are many different ways we can approach sufficient assumption questions. I recommend doing the method best for you in a timed setting. It can be a great exercise to analyze sufficient and necessary indicators during blind review and wrong answer journaling.

Hope this helps!

Hey there,

Good question. Your elimination method to get to answer choice E is correct. The stimulus does say "either A or B" so you're correct in saying this is the inclusive "or."

The test makers usually indicate which one is being used. If you do not see clarifying language saying "either... or... but not both," we could clearly identify that as the exclusive "or" and anything without that language as the inclusive "or."

Hey there,

A quick way to test this is ask yourself what words can be substituted for "but" based on the context of the paragraph. For instance, replacing "but" with "first" at the beginning of the stimulus above reveals how the "but" is not really a disagreement with the beginning of the stimulus.

I hope this trick helps you out!

Hey there,

This question is a good example of why it is important to consider the context of our indicator words. You are correct in saying the word "but" typically introduces a premise but that is not the case here. Swapping in the word "actually," I think best shows us what the word is doing -- introducing the position of the speaker through the disagreement with the other position.

Hope this helps!

Hey there,

Great question! This definitely comes down to the preferences of the individual test taker. I personally needed to write down the diagrams for all questions containing conditional reasoning, but I tutor many students who choose to find the answers using their intuition. I recommend deciding which specific types of answer choices are made more clear with diagrams.

If you mean scenario drawing, the same applies! Helpful to some, but not to all. Try out both strategies to see which works best for you.

Hey there,

This is an excellent question, and an even better exercise to engage in with LR questions! The incorrect answer choices often look appealing because they will be sufficient or necessary assumptions that we know apply to the argument in some way, but not necessarily the way the answer choice presents itself through our question type.

For this question we do see a necessary assumption in answer choice E. In order for the conclusion to follow about the information we can gather based on the study, we would have to have information that correctly reflected the confidence levels of those involved in the experiment.

Hey there,

We have to be careful when negating information like this. The contrapositive of answer choice B would be "If mike does not dislike lima beans, then his parents do not dislike them OR he does not have few family members who enjoy them."

This information does not connect to the argument form in our stimulus, which states the opinion of a lot of people is influential in our tastes. Answer choice B's stimulus pertains to only a small number of people. So even when we negate it, we don't have information connecting to the scenario we want based on the stimulus.

Hope this helps!

Hey there,

Consider what we know in the scenario presented by E. When homeowners rake up their grass clippings, all we know is that the necessary nutrients are depleted. But, this does not mean the grass could not get the nutrients from a special type of soil or gardening method.

For answer choice E to be correct we need to assume that the only possible way to maintain the health of your yard is with the grass clippings. The argument does not draw that connection and thus leaves open the possibility that fertilizer of some sort could compensate for the lack of grass clippings.

Always ask, what do we know that 100% must follow from the sufficient condition the answer choice is providing us?

Hope this helps!

Hey there,

That analysis of answer choice B is a tad bit different than what the answer says. Rather than telling us magnets do intensify transmission, it says they are capable of doing so. Thus, for this to strengthen the argument, we are required to assume that the magnets here are making use of the capability they possess.

Hope this helps! Be careful in making sure your summary of the answer choices exactly echoes the information the test makers present.

Hey there,

Answer choice D has some vague language that requires us to make assumptions. When D says the new equipment is better at locating harder to find animals -- how much better? It could be something as negligible as 1%. Additionally, how do we know doing a better job at finding the animals translates to an increase in finding more animals overall? Ultimately, these are questions required by answer choice D we do not see in answer choice A.

Hey there,

Thank you for your feedback! You are absolutely correct about the reading of answer choice E and a note will be made on the video.

For future reference, remember there are two reasons why we miss a question. We both select an incorrect answer choice and eliminate the correct one. So we understand why you didn't select answer choice E. Now analyze it from the flip side. How did you then convince yourself or make assumptions to read another answer choice as being correct?

Again, you were totally right in your identification of that typo! Definitely think about breaking up wrong answer analysis into the discussion of why you eliminated the right and selected the wrong answer.

Hey there,

The explanation you received below is a great one. I wanted to add we also want to keep in mind the type of question we are answering. For a Most Strongly Supported question we should anticipate our answer choice is going to be mostly supported but not a satisfying fit we know is 100% the correct answer.

So, you are correct in saying there is nowhere in the stimulus that says an item could be both a novel and a poem. But, the stimulus also does not imply this could not be true! You are right in pointing out an assumption required by answer choice C. Unfortunately, with MSS questions, it's often the case our correct answer is simply the one with the least offensive assumption.

Hope this helps!

Hey there,

Great question! Answer choice B comes close, but it requires an assumption we cannot justify based on the information presented in the stimulus.

Answer choice B says they maintain these laws to avoid an increase in property taxes. That assumes that if we remodel something then it is going to incur some sort of property tax. But we don't know that to be the case! A remodel could be something on the interior of the house that does not impact taxes.

So B comes pretty close, but it ultimately requites a layer of assumption our correct answer does not. Hope this helps!

Hey there!

Good question. D is a tempting answer choice because it contains the relationship we want to hit on. But, D strengthens the argument rather than weakens it.

Our position is that people involved in the arts tend to engage in other civil activities. Answer choice D supports that by saying yep, these artistic people are more likely to participate in this civic activity.

D strengthens what our passage is saying while E does the opposite. Hope this helps!

Hey there,

Great question! When we do not have clear sufficient and necessary indicators, it is very helpful to reword the answer choice in the "if-then" format. For instance, we could state answer choice B as "if Jenny has a birthday party, then there will be lots of balloons." That makes the conditionality of our statement a lot more clear.

It can be difficult to determine if words like "will" introduce a sufficient or necessary condition. Rather than giving ourselves a headache figuring that out, translate the answer choices into an if-then or other sufficient-necessary format to make the conditionality more visible!

Also yes, you can eliminate based on the word "most" so long as we are 100% sure our original stimulus did not use quantity modifying terms!

Hey there!

I’m sorry this question is giving you trouble. To best understand a Logical Reasoning question, start by breaking it down into a skeleton of a low-res summary that just lays out our conclusion and its bare bones reasoning. For example, we know that for this question:

It is important to exercise the opposite sides of your back equally. Why? Because balanced development is required for a healthy back.

Already, we can see a jump being made from premise to conclusion. Our argument assumes equal exercise on sides is important because we require balanced muscle development. Answer choice B lays that out for us – hidden in the contrapositive. Right now, the answer can be diagrammed as:

Exercising unequal → unbalanced development, so our contrapositive…

Balanced development → Equal muscle development on both sides.

This exactly fills that assumption! I hope this helps. Please ask further questions if not!

Hey there!

To see why answer choice C is incorrect we can use the negation test. We know a necessary assumption is one that has to be true. So, our negation should destroy the argument.

If we negate C, it turns into "Earth is not the only source of basic materials..." but this negation does not hurt our argument. Just because there are other sources of these resources does not tell us whether we can access them.

Meanwhile, answer choice E is correct because our negation destroys the argument. If Mars is a practical source of those materials, it would not be an issue to transport them. The negation of E destroys our argument while the negation of C does not.

Hope this helps!

Hey there,

I think your question exactly points out what is wrong with answer choice B! The phrase "perceivable consequence" is incredibly vague. I think an example of a perceivable consequence could be someone going to prison for a crime. But still we can't be quite sure of what they mean in this phrasing. Because of that, we would have to draw an assumption about B to make it the correct answer. This is typically our hint that we are not looking at a contender.

Hope this helps!

Hey there!

Great question. It does seem strange to say not to elect even a president. But remember, we are supposed to accept the truth of the answer choices in this question (indicated by the "if true" phrase in the question) rather than look at answer choices and analyze them in terms of whether they rationally make sense in our own world.

I hope this helps! Let me know if that is not what you meant.

Hey there!

Good question. It is very challenging to remember all the information presented in the passages. Rather than try to remember a lot of information, it is better to prioritize remembering where the author talks about certain subjects.

If we try to remember all the details, we are likely to have to return to the passage anyhow in order to answer the questions. Because of this, I recommend not stressing the details in the first read. Instead, experiment with remembering where the author talks about different subjects rather than exactly what the author says about them.

Hope this helps!