I picked B because I mistook "is typically confined to" for "should be typically confined to." Neither passage suggested anything regarding what types of research the judges ACTUALLY conduct. We can make inferences regarding what kinds of research the two authors saw as preferable, yet nothing was stated regarding what actually happens in this situation.

@IsabelTing11 this stimulus makes a lot more sense after reading your analysis! I got the question right through POE but I didn’t really catch what the socialist was trying to say. You are spot on with “socialist denying inevitability”, this is a direct counter to the “inevitable path to socialism” claim. Thank you for the insight!!

@Kb092100 in addition, I think the better you are at taking the test, the more confusing this question is for you. Because the language and logic of answer choice A, though it’s the wrong answer, is harder to comprehend, while B is accurate and more straightforward.

In simpler terms, the better you are at interpreting what A is saying, the more appealing it becomes. Plus, there’s always the psychological tendency to lend credibility to complex looking answer choices.

After reading JY’s explanation, I think what makes A conclusively weaker (competitor’s campaign wording stuff aside), is the tenuous nature of the term “takes for granted” in the context of this question. We’ve seen this phrase so many times that we might have overlooked what it truly means. This criticism only retains its strength against the author’s argument if it’s truly an assumption that the author made.

A is essentially attributing the assumption that “if the company didn’t use the advertising campaign, then the sales wouldn’t have been lower” to the author. In other words, answer choice A is assuming what the author would assume in the scenario where the advertisement was not implemented.

But the actual assumption gap the author made was “bad ad -caused-> bad sales” (a causal claim) but do we know what the author would say about what would happen if the ad was never implemented? No.

AC A is weak because the author could easily counter with “now you are putting words in my mouth.•

To use a specific example to demonstrate why the author would not assume A. Consider the situation where the author thinks that an ill conceived advertisement is AS EFFECTIVE AS no advertisement at all. This would mean:

1. The author assumes that, in the absence of the advertisement, the sales would actually be lower still. (A is now descriptively inaccurate)

2. Perfectly consistent with the author’s argument

This is the weakness of attributing assumptions to the author. If You are putting words into the author’s mouth, get ready to steelman.

And this is why B is relatively superior, it’s conclusively and descriptive accurate. By making an implicit causal claim, the author DID OVERLOOK other alternative explanations for the bad sales.

There are two critical assumptions made by the author: 1. The implementation of the proposal results in a net negative outcome. Yet, the only factor for consideration provided was the reliability in determining the effectiveness of clinical trials of surgical procedures.

1. If individual cases of the procedure result in inconsistent outcomes, then the effectiveness of a procedure AS A WHOLE cannot be reliably determined / this variation in outcomes is enough to rule out the values of the procedures.

This means there are at least two ways to criticize the author: 1. Even if we concede to point 2, there might still be other benefits that would warrant the extension. For instance, maybe we can obtain unprecedented knowledge from the few successful cases of clinical trial procedures. This knowledge would then help us advance modern medicine. Doesn't this sound cool?

Point 2 is what AC A came after: Just because the results look unreliable on a case-by-case level, we can still observe the general trend and conclude something about the effectiveness of the procedures AS A WHOLE.

"New surgical procedures might be found to be intrinsically more harmful": Yes, when all the surgeons perform the same exact procedure, the good surgeons will likely produce much better outcomes relative to the bad surgeons. But Bad Procedures, even when performed by good surgeons, will still perform poorly in comparison to other, better procedures. And this can be observed by looking at the overall trend of the effectiveness of outcomes of the procedures.

If we can observe the effectiveness of the procedure in comparison to the best treatment available, then that's valuable information! The procedure is intrinsically more harmful? Well, maybe we should abandon this procedure. This is exactly why we need the clinical trials, without it, we would never know how the effectiveness of the procedure compares to other procedures or other methods.

Another example to demonstrate point 2: LSAT PT scores. Of course there are variations, we all know a one-time 180 scorer almost never consistently score 180, but this inconsistency doesn't mean the scores are of no inferential value. Someone who inconsistently scores within the 175-180 range will almost definitely outperform someone who scores within the 150-155 range.

@Kb092100 I think the tricky part of this question, specifically why a strong answer like D would slide under the radar, is that we are more used to recognizing poorly supported established correlations. The results of study 2&3 felt more "promising" because they stated a correlation DID NOT exist, instead of the usual "supporting my unwarranted correlation with the BS data that I collected from a subreddit survey." Yet, false positives and false negatives are both mismatches between predictions/reports and the reality. I got this question wrong for this exact reason, I completely overlooked D.

By stating the effect "disappears", the author assumes 1. the effect appeared (supported by the correlation in study 1), then 2. faded (supported by the absence of correlation in study 2 &3).

The conclusion, by positing a conditional, locks in the first causal relationship, so we don't have to worry about Study 1. But assumption 2 still remains, are study 2&3's results truly reflective of the correlation between nearsightedness and night lights? If these 2 studies are not rigorous enough, then we can't infer anything.

D is almost like a negation of the author's necessary assumption. The author assumes the two studies are at least somewhat reliable, while D shuts it down completely.

E is wrong because 1. the establishment of a correlation requires comparisons. What if several of the children who did not sleep with night-lights were also nearsighted? 2. For E to work, we must assume all of the nearsighted + night-lights children in the 4th study were nearsighted because they slept with night-lights as infants, or that we somehow live in a simulated universe where the only reason that leads to nearsightedness is sleeping with night-lights as infants.

Random tangent for the incredible 7sagers and tutors: The premise itself makes philosophical sense, but it's a terrible argument for its conclusion. The premise's support relies on a critical assumption [for a characterization of a certain group to be accurate, it must not lead to an implausible implication]

This is an unwarranted assumption because why would an accurate characterization of a group presuppose zero internal contradictions?

This question reminds me of PrepTest 158 - Section 4 - Question 22. The trap answer D said:

This trap answer and this argument give me similar vibes. Both hinge on our intuitive distaste for contradictions to trick us into accepting an argument, but the issue is that contradictions are just not relevant sometimes.

More insights would be great, manifesting rn.

Oh my god I see why it’s C now. For anyone feeling confused yet finds no explanation, here is my take:

The author basically committed circular reasoning (the more minor mistake?) and attributing unwarranted intentions to his opponent (the central mistake)

Answer choice C is a very detailed way of saying “uh why would you assume that about other people’s intentions” by pointing out an alternative intention, which the author fails to eliminate.

“It fails to show” - the author fails to address

“Why the other scientists could not have been” - that the scientists actually

“Presenting evidence in order to establish the truth of the matter” presented the evidence solely for the sake of establishing the truth (implicitly: not to discredit Professor smith)

Note to self: the logic behind C’s counter allows for an essentially unlimited amount of ways of addressing the author’s argument flaw.

In its most abstract form, it’s saying the author has overlooked alternative explanations/assumptions/motivations that are at least as credible as the author’s assumption.

LSAC could bring this abstraction back down to earth by materializing it into a specific counterexample. In this case, doing it for the sake of doing it.

Expecto negation as well! But all of the games are super fun and helpful.

@MichaelWright thank you for the insight!! This makes sense. I really appreciate the example and I actually think I might’ve missed out on the an important aspect of the test. There are definitely questions that require a stricter understanding of the nuances of formal logic, but this question, and your chair example, definitely relies on the rhetorical comprehension of the argument. In the end, it’s a law school entrance exam, not a philosophy mid-term. :)

This is just my own take, and I might be overthinking this:

I disagree that the negation of D is "parts that satisfy our government standards ARE as poorly constructed as cheap foreign made parts" if we were to apply the same method of negation for E to D.

E negated: some parts that are made for cars manufactured in our country are poorly constructed.

D negated (with the same negation rule): some parts that satisfy our government standards are as poorly constructed as cheap foreign-made parts.

In other terms, both E and D are both absolute conditional statements, so technically D's negation only implies that SOME of the standard-meeting parts are poorly constructed.

But D is superior to E, because the author made multiple assumptions.

I agree 100% with E's analysis. We DON‘T NEED every part manufactured for cars in this country to not be poorly constructed, we just need Clark brand-name to not be poorly constructed. So, an absolute conditional statement is unnecessary.

E , despite its negated form also being a SOME statement, is necessary. Because the advertisement said this:

With foreign-made parts, you never know which might be reliable and which are cheap look-alikes that are poorly constructed and liable to cost you hundreds of dollars in repairs.

This accusation of "uncertainty in quality" was only attributed to foreign parts, according to the advertisement. And based on this, the author concluded that Clark is superior. Therefore, the author's implicit assumption must be that Clark does not have this negative attribute, or that ALL CLARK PARTS are NOT poorly constructed as cheap foreign-made parts. This necessitates an absolute conditional relationship, which is provided by D. If D is not true, though it's not necessarily true that Clark is always inferior, but it opens up the possibility that Clark's quality is also uncertain, much like its foreign counterparts. This destroys the key distinction the advertisement relied on, and the conclusion is now unfounded.

I got this wrong because I struggled to parse the question stem, but I think now I have a better understanding of what it actually is asking for. Here is my take:

1. Question stem breakdown: Q's response serves to counter any use by M of the evidence about 85- to 90-year-olds in support of which of the following hypotheses?

In comprehensible language: the correct answer choice should be a hypothesis that Q's response would counter + M would try to support using some sort of evidence.

2. According to the stimulus, M didn't argue for any specific explanation, she simply stated a phenomenon. Q did provide an implicit hypothesis, supported by a historical fact. Q is implicitly saying the rare occurrences of 85–90-year-olds who are left-handed is caused by a cultural event, the society punishing children for using their left hands.

A hypothesis naturally serves to counter any competing hypothesis, therefore, Q's argument serves to counter any argument that implies this phenomenon is caused by non-cultural factors, such as a genetic predisposition of the demographic under discussion.

The part in the question where it dragged M into the situation really is just a convoluted way of saying "a hypothetical situation where Q's argument could attack a hypothesis, and what is this hypothesis?" So, there is no need to further analyze M's statement.

3. Our core task is to find a hypothesis that would be attacked by Q's argument. From our previous analysis of Q's argument (refer to part 2), we concluded that Q's response has the capacity to attack any argument that implies the phenomenon, as stated by M, is caused by non-cultural factors.

4.

obviously wrong ACs:

B is actually consistent with Q's argument, and it doesn't suggest any alternative explanation that would trigger a counter from Q. So, B is simply irrelevant.

C Same issue, it doesn't trigger a counter from Q. If anything, C likely assumes hand preferences are altered by cultural factors, which is, again, consistent with Q's hypothesis.

E Same issue, it doesn't trigger a counter from Q. "learned in school" also insists that hand preferences are altered by cultural factors, so it's consistent with Q's hypothesis

Correct AC: A- Being born right-handed confers a survival advantage. This implies there might be a natural predisposition that causes more right-handed, and correspondingly, less left-handedness. This implied natural predisposition constitutes an alternative explanation, therefore, challenging Q's hypothesis.

In other words, it's nature(AC A) vs. culture(Q's response). So Q would serve to counter this.

I'm aware that there are assumption gaps, but A truly is the best answer available because D simply cannot be attacked by Q, AC D just can't possibly get the job done.

Why? Because D already conceded to Q by stating "handedness is a product of social pressure (and genetic predisposition)"

D straight up agrees with Q, at least as a partial explanation for the phenomenon.

Feel free to share your thoughts!

To its core, the conclusion addresses a negative correlation between happiness and wealth: The wealthier you are, the less happy you are. And the assumed driving mechanism under this correlation is the net quantity of unsatisfied desires.

B directly points out this mechanism.

C's issue: It potentially strengthens a claim that argues against a positive correlation between happiness and wealth, by shutting down the assumption that one unit of satisfied desire increases one's happiness.

Yet it simply fails the task of explaining the negative correlation. Ok, good for you, now we know I'm not going to be happier just because money will resolve more of my desires. But getting wealthier won't make me any less happy either, according to your logic, I still got nothing to lose when I get richer!

And this is exactly where the problem is, according to the columnist's logic, you have something to lose as you get richer, happiness. C fails to support the conclusion because if someone comes up with this counterargument, C stays completely silent.

Structure of the argument: 1. Historical context: Moroccan troops defeated a Portuguese army and killed King Sebastian. 2. Weird phenomenon: Portuguese contemporaries did not record the death of King Sebastian. 3. Author's take on the explanation for this (eliminating an alternative explanation): It's not simply cause by ignorance. [implicit: at least some Portuguese contemporaries knew about the death yet chose to not record it.] 4. Author's evidence: 2 captured Portuguese officers literally stayed in the same prison cell with two soldiers who identified the King's body. [Implicit: there's no way in hell these officers did not know the King died.] However, these two officers DID NOT even mention the King's death in their battle records. 5. Author's take on the explanation - conclusion: The omission of the King's death had a psychological cause - the Portuguese found his death extremely humiliating.

The author briefly described the historical context, rejected an alternative hypothesis (ignorance led to omission), provided evidence countering the alternative hypothesis (the 2 officers who were NOT ignorant), and concluded with her explanation for the omission.

A - Spot on. The alternative explanation was ignorance.

just sorting my thoughts out:

[ Sober: 5/100 positive, coke user: 99/100] address the likelihood of the corresponding groups testing positive. I.e. coke users are more likely to test positive. Sobers are less likely to test positive.

This piece of info addresses the attributes of the sobers and coke users, NOT THE POPULATION.

[Majority of the positive results from the random sample] attempts to address something about the general population, since a random sample is a representation of the population. Yet, the premise does not support any claim regarding the population as a whole. All that was compared was the likelihood of sober users testing positive v. Coke users testing positive.

In other words, if you are a coke user, you are more likely to test positive, but this does not mean that, if you tested positive, you are more likely to be a coke user.

If you are a coke user, you are more likely to test positive: 99 positive test/100 coke user

If you tested positive, you are more likely to be a coke user: 51 coke users / 100 positive tests. (The exact numbers do not matter, as long as it’s the “majority”)

These two statements are based on completely different stats, and this is where the explanation and correct AC are spot on: we can’t assume 51 Coke users / 100 positive tests is true based on the premise. Maybe people rarely use coke, so 99% of the positive tests are actually sobers who tested false positive! That would mean 99 sober / 100 positive tests, which means the majority of the positive tests from the random sample are SOBERS.

The only reason I got this question correct was getting ungodly good at negating quantifiers after obsessing with the new LSAT games. Thank you 7sage #blessed

Structural breakdown:

Addiction's current definition: dependence on and abuse of a psychoactive substance.

Author's stance/conclusion: This definition is incorrect.

Premise: 1. (sub-conclusion) dependence and abuse do not always go hand in hand: dependence and abuse need not be concurrently required for defining a case of addiction.

1. Counterexample (to the current definition of addiction) #1: Cancer patients and morphine: dependence and abuse.

2. Counterexample #2: drug abusers: dependence and abuse

3. Implicit message: dependence and abuse don't always occur together in cases of addiction.

The author tries to show a definition is incorrect by 1. claiming dependence and abuse need not be required at the same time 2. provide two counterexamples to prove this point.

Key to spotting the necessary assumption: for a counterexample to even be relevant to the argument, it MUST be a case under discussion. If cancer patients and people who abuse drugs aren't addicts, then they are completely irrelevant to the argument, and why would the author even mention them then?

This is why C is correct. Negating C would mean cancer patients who are dependent on morphine ARE NOT addicted to it. Ok... Now why do we even care about these patients? We are trying to figure out how to correctly define an addict, and these people aren't even addicts!

Keep in mind, it is the PRESENCE of a counterexample that is necessary for challenging the definition, not the FREQUENCY of the occurrence of the counterexamples. A makes this mistake, and that's why it's unnecessary. We don't need every single cancer patient to not abuse morphine, we just need one cancer patient, who is addicted, to depend on morphine, yet not abusing it. Just one instance of this is enough for us to challenge the definition.

This is the best thing ever! I wish I saw this sooner. They are so fun.

The premise:

1. chance of being elected --> /support new tax plan.

2. understands economics --> /support new tax plan

the conclusion:

chance of being elected --> understands economics

Therefore, the author's assumption:

chance of being elected --> /support new tax plan --> understands economics.

What went wrong?

the premise stated that

understand economics --> /support new tax plan

yet the author assumed

/support new tax plan --> understands economics

This means the author has confused a sufficient condition for a necessary condition, or that the author has overlooked the possibility that there are people who do not support the new tax plan, yet does not understand economics (in other words, understanding economics guarantees that you do not support the new tax plan, but just because you support the new tax plan doesn't necessarily mean you understand economics). This is exactly what D stated.

B is very tricky, but it isn't something the author has overlooked, because the author's conclusion stated that truly understanding economics is a necessary condition for having a chance of being elected. This means that B: people who truly understand economics can still have no chance of being elected, is actually perfectly consistent with the author's assumptions and conclusion.

@TriambakaShriram great question! C doesn’t actually break the initial conditional. Because the conditional used “unless” instead of “if.”

There is a logical difference between “we should not restrict unless it negatively impacts others” and “we should not restrict if it negatively impacts others” (I know this sounds weird, but bear with me).

The principle stated in the stimulus uses the former: we should not restrict unless it negatively impacts others. In conditional form, this can be written as [/negative impact —> should not restrict] or [should restrict —> negative impact]

This isn’t a prescription for what to do when the action negatively impacts others. It only tells us that, IF we should restrict a certain action, then that action MUST negatively impact others. Therefore, the fact that smoking does cause harm to others and should not be restricted is actually perfectly consistent with the principle because should not be restricted is the necessary condition.

if you need any further clarification I’m happy to answer!

@Kb092100 this really is an “once you see it you can’t unsee it” type of question. The author implicitly made an assumption, then threw a bunch of premises at us. While we are preoccupied with dissecting his word vomit, AC E just quietly sat there like “dude it’s really not as complicated as you think.”

Simply put, what’s the point of arguing for building a house out of bricks when bricks don’t exist?

The hard part is eliminating D, but that’s also strangely simple: the premise only mentioned criteria for WHAT TO INCLUDE, not WHAT TO EXCLUDE, meaning even contradicting claims are welcomed by the definition. In other words, the definition’s composition doesn’t define the definition.

i feel like I need to sue someone for this.

@Stas1973 first of all, thank you for your reply(and reading my comment)! I 100% agree with you. Looking back, I think I was still making the mistake of not firmly anchoring myself to the argument. Your point about E being a failed attempt to directly attack the conclusion instead of the argument was spot on. The correct AC does the job of dismantling the author’s assumption that the prevalence of low-ceiling houses is an indicator of the causal relationship made in his conclusion, while the impact of “thermal-insulating technologies” wasn’t even stated. And like you said, even if it was stated, it still doesn’t necessarily weaken the author’s reasoning. Justifying E necessitates a bunch of unwarranted assumptions.

This was a mistake that I didn’t even know I was making back then. Fortunately I caught on eventually, your comment served as the perfect reminder that this is something I need to keep in mind :)

@EthanLucas of course, I’m so glad this helped! :)