A, Wrong, A does not accept any part of C's argument
B, Wrong, A does discredit evidence, but does not add to C's conclusion
C, Correct, A rejects C's criteria that F is great because she was ahead of her time. She then concluded that what C identifies as A's primary reason for being a great writer is wrong.
D, Wrong, A does not support an alternative conclusion
E, Wrong, A does not attach C's claims, she disputes them. Further, A does not mention C's structure.
Writing this because there is no 7sage explanation:
Stimulus:
Premise: /answer questions --> /competent
Conclusion: my doctor answers each question --> competent
What are we looking for in an AC?
/A --> /B therefore A --> B
Or in english terms:
The doctor fails the condition to be consdiered incompetent, and therefore is competent. We need the correct AC to have a situation where criteria for a [designation, trait etc] are failed, and then the opposite of said [designation, trait etc] is concluded to be true.
A: Wrong, the general order and use of conditional logic is wrong.
Mapped out A looks like:
Large family (A) --> Accustomed to Compromise (B)
Meredith accustomed to compromise (B) --> Therefore she might have a large family (A)
B: Wrong, like a, the order is wrong
/In favor --> /well informed
/jean in favor --> /jean well informed
C: Wrong, does not use negations in the same way
Like music --> /miss proformence
Paul like music --> missed proformence
D: Correct, the form follows that in the stim
/one jobs --> /no balence
maggie one job --> maggie balence
This is a bit tricky because for this to work you need to take the 'anyone who works two or more jobs" to mean /one job. If you do not make that negation, this AC does not make as much sense (especially how I went about solving this. Further, looking at the form of D, not the nitty-gritty logic... the stimulis conculdes that the doctor does not meet criteria for incompetnece (can answer questions) and is therfore competnent. Like this, D states that maddie fails the condition for finding balence (has one job) and therefore can find balence.
E: Wrong. I eliminted this one right off the bat becuse of it's use of "and" the stim is not setup with an and statement.
hot tempered+ stong willed --> suceed in business
Jeremy is strong willed --> / suceed
A: WRONG, nothing in the passage indicates tax revenue, while this on it's face is not a reason to eliminate A, there is nothing in this AC other than "taxes paid by businesses" to link it to the passage. Further, the passage specifies the RATE (being high or low) and AC A does not mention a rate.
B: CORRECT, if a higher rate (directly mentioned in the passage) also indicates that an area has higher services and better education, it might make sense that businesses would be in areas with high-tax rates as this is connected with other desirable locational-traits.
C: WRONG if this were true, this would anti-support the passage. We are seeking to explain why a business may remain even in a high-tax area (which we are asked to infer is NOT on it's face a positive for a business.)
D: WRONG, while this AC (unlike A) does connect more specifically to the passage, it is unclear how this helps to resolve the tax issue.
E: WRONG, while this AC was tempting, the passage is focusing on companies that are relocating, and picking a new area, NOT a company that is already established and is threatening relocation.
Commenting because there is not a 7sage explanation:
Conclusion: Thus, as the physicalists claim, mental functions are bound to receive explanations in neurobiological terms in the near future.
Supported by:
Achieving this goal requires knowledge of neurons and their basic functions, a knowledge of how neurons interact, and a delineation of the psychological faculties to be explained.
Therefore:
At present, there is a substantial amount of fundamental knowledge about the basic functions of neurons, and the and character of such psychological capacities as visual perception and memory are well understood.
Missing:
The underlined portion of the requirement "knowledge of how neurons interact"
Therefore the conclusion cannot follow because all of the rule-requirements are not met.
A: WRONG The conclusion "mental functions are bound to receive explanations in neurobiological terms in the near future." is not contradicted by anything in the passage.
B: WRONG, while the passage does fail to describe what is currently known, this is not an accurate description of the error. The passage would not err any less if it contained more details of what is currently known. The premises of the passage and requirements for "all mental functions to be explainable in neurological terms" does NOT require a complete description of what is currently known. Rather, "knowledge of neurons and their basic functions, a knowledge of how neurons interact" is required.
C: WRONG the passage does not do this.
D: WRONG, the utility of explaining mental functions is not relavent to the argument posed in the passage.
E: CORRECT, E is correct because as predicted above, the passage lays out a rule and then does not satisfy it. The missing requirement is the error in reasoning in this case.
Dearest LSAT grinders,
Any interest in a time-accommodation study group? Would love to connect with people practicing under similar conditions!
We know:
All of John’s friends say they know someone who smoked 40 cigarettes a day for 40 years and is still fit and well.
John does not know anyone like that.
It is quite certain that John is not unique among his friends in this respect — meaning at least one of his friends also does not know anyone like that.
Therefore:
Every friend claims to know such a person.
But at least one friend does not actually know such a person.
Therefore, at least one friend is not telling the truth.
(a) Too specific — nothing says smokers lie about smoking amounts. This question is about the friends not the smokers.
(b) Possible, but not required. Also too general, the question is about John and his friends.
(c) No reason to think they all know the same smoker. Unsupported
(d) Too strong — we only know some (at least one) are not telling the truth, not most.