"Time will tell if I'm right"

@arieatsoranges In a sense it does refer to those works, too, because the author thinks that when value isn't intrinsic, that means the value is extrinsic. So it's OK if you though the last sentence was saying "extrinsic --> quality is a matter of taste". You'd still be anticipating the same missing link, though, because that idea "extrinsic --> quality is a matter of taste" would still be an assumption of the author. Does that make sense?

/intrinsic --> extrinsic

-----

/intrinsic --> quality is matter of taste

/instrinsic --> extrinsic

-----

extrinsic --> quality is a matter of taste

in both cases the author has not actually established that "extrinsic --> quality is a matter of taste"

@EchoVortex Oops, I missed that:

Plausibility answer choice tag

Weaken Qs: Answers that undermine an explanation by providing evidence that doesn't fit what we'd expect if that explanation were true

Strengthen Qs: Answers that strengthen an explanation by providing corroborating evidence (i.e. evidence that fits what we'd expect if that explanation were true)

Example: Let's say the author's causal assumption is that vaccines cause cancer.

We could weaken the argument by showing that people who take vaccines are not more likely to get cancer than people who don't take vaccines. And you could strengthen the argument by showing that people who take vaccines are more likely to get cancer than others (if there wasn't already a correlation between vaccines and cancer).

This is being fixed. No ETA yet but it's on people's radar.

@MelHart "Spellcasters can't..." is different from "Spellcasters WHO can't..."

When "can't" is part of a modifier, it's not being used in the same way as it is when it's the predicate verb of the whole statement. It doesn't provide the conditional structure to the whole statement anymore. Does that make sense?

"Spellcasters WHO can't..." just spells out the specific group of spellcasters we're getting a fact about.

We're working on this! @J.Y.Ping @MichaelWright

@RichardAbramov That timing is a bit off, because this question uses the same stimulus as #21 from the same section. So in practice someone who sees #22 in a section will have just read the stimulus for #21.

Unfortunately it's a minor timing issue overall so I don't think we can get dev to spend resources fixing this any time soon.

@ConnorSantino I'd just treat "un" like "not." There might be a few concepts where this doesn't really apply, but nothing is coming to me off the top of my head.

As a practical matter, even if I think something isn't 100% airtight as a matter of logic, the next question is, well, what else am I going to pick? Other answers are based on clear misinterpretations of statements or the relationship between them. The one answer I'm considering looks good except for this one question of whether "not comfortable" implies "uncomfortable." That's an easy decision for me.

"

@JoshuaCosmas Yes, that's right. (Some people do like to write down a little bit, but most people probably won't have enough time to do this.)

@ChrisBos It seems like you're treating this as if the correct answer is something that must be proven by the stimulus?

This is a different kind of question. The correct answer, if we treat it as true, will guarantee the conclusion must be true.

@EvanReimer Premise is the keyword. What part of the argument is "dried parsley should never be used in cooking"?

@Ghost376 Do you have a specific question about one of the answers? I'll post another response to a prior question about A:

"I don't think an author needs to explicitly say "I do not necessarily endorse the argument I described" to support the idea that they don't necessarily endorse the argument.

1. We should do X, because of Y.

2. One can obviously argue that we should do X, because of Y.

In #1, the author necessarily commits to the idea that we should do X because of Y. That commitment is not as clear in #2."

Also:

"First, what do you make of the difference between saying that a wrong "can most easily be righted" in a certain way, and the idea that the way should be adopted? Can one say "this is the easiest way to do something" without necessarily thinking that it should be done? And, to head off a potential response, I don't think the mere characterization of something as a "wrong" implies the belief that something should be done to fix that wrong.

Second, if we do believe that the argument sketched out ends before "This may be impractical," isn't there a difference between "ideally, the land should be restored to its rightful owners," and "compromises might have to be made ... return [the land] wherever that is feasible." Arguably taking a more moderate position isn't necessarily an endorsement of the more extreme position (assuming we read "ideally, the land should be restored..." as the more extreme position)."

The best way to clarify what's confusing for you is to explain exactly how you are thinking about this question.

@Kevin_Lin Cheat sheet is here! https://7sage.com/pages/free-lsat-resources-conditionals-cheat-sheet

@Summer I encourage you to skip and come back much later only if you need to. Don’t worry too much about this lesson.

@thr107 You can click the "show question" button under the title to see the question first and try it on your own. Many students prefer to do this.

@thr107 Actually, it's very possible. The correlation to cause fallacy is very common on the LSAT, and when you see enough examples of it and understand how it works, then you'll almost immediately spot it after understanding the argument in this stimulus.

Also, just to be clear, no one should be drawing anything on scratch paper for a question like this. You'll often see visuals drawn out for explanations, but that's just for the purpose of explanations. It's supposed to help people understand what's going on in the question. By the time you take the test, you'll already understand the issue and there's no reason to draw anything out to understand what a correlation is and why it doesn't prove causation.

@kroper4 It sounds like if there's a conditional reasoning issue, you'd prefer a diagram-based explanation over an English-based one when possible, is that right?

For example:

All apples are red. This fruit is red. So, it's an apple.

Instead of just an explanation saying "Although we know all apples are red, this doesn't mean all red fruits are apples. There could be other red fruits, like a strawberry. The author is taking something necessary for being an apple (red) and thinking it's sufficient for being apple."

You'd prefer something more like:

apple --> red

red

So, apple.

The author reverses the conditional premise -- he reads it as "red --> apple."

@_ It sounds like you're interpreting "The only people whose athlete's foot was cured had been given M" as if that means within the study, everyone who got M was cured?

If so, that's not what that claim means. It means if someone was cured, then they received M. But there could be many participants who got M and weren't cured.

D doesn't work because the reporter never suggested that other medications can't cure athlete's foot. The reporter just says that he thinks anyone who wasn't cured din't take M. That doesn't indicate any belief about whether other medications could also cure athletes foot.

EDIT: Ok, I think I see what your'e saying. You don't like A because it wasn't narrowed to people in the study. I think the issue is there's a very specific logical error the reporter made. No other answer describes this. We're looking for an answer pointing out the author confuses sufficient and necessary conditions. You can read A charitably as referring to people in the study.

@NoraElkhyati "only" is the key part of your statement. Even if you interpret C as meaning Matilde does care about investment...it doesn't suggest that's the only thing she cares about.

@Gabero123 Ignore the clock! It doesn't matter how long things are taking you right now. Treat these questions as untimed.

@EmmaKeane8 has a good approach. I'll also note that on test day, you'd likely only be diagramming AT MOST 1 or 2 questions on a section.

Diagramming is about building our intuition. If you start by using "intuition" and it's not getting the results you want...then that's why we need to build them up. But if you are getting the results you want, then there's no need to re-invent your processes.

@GGG If your starting diagnostic is in the high 150s or above, then I think it's OK to move quickly through this (and even to skip entirely). If it's lower, you'll get more value out of these first modules. You can still feel free to move through them quickly if you feel you understand them, though.

@Hwang Isn't D "NOT happy --> serious financial problem"?

The stimulus tells us happiness requires financial problems solved. That doesn't mean that if someone's unhappy, they must have financial problems. It's possible they can be unhappy for other reasons, even if financial problems are one thing that do lead to unhappiness.