In doses that are massive enough to kill cells, all stuff causes cancer because cell death -> rapid division -> more cancer mutation (causal relationship)

some chemicals can cause cancer without killing any cells.

Food additive studies tend to use more massive doses than are needed to kill cells and observe cancer rates.

A. Wrong because cell death does occur

B. The doses used in the studies are way more cancer-causing than it actually is. The overestimate in the AC makes sense

C. Well we don’t know what is defined as truly causing cancer

D. Dunno that

E. I chose this one, and it is wrong. We don’t know if they are safe to use. Using larger doses in an experiment does not mean that it is safe when it's used in smaller doses.

Honestly for AC A, I was like, what if this book is not published on acid paper but was carved on some stone or metal? After all the stim says almost all, not all...

But I do accept that B made this teeny tiny assumption that everything goes.

It's just. it makes me mad. lol.

What confuses me is that, in the stem, we're told that citizens are only allowed to vote for the representative from their neighborhood. Is it the case that citizens are allowed to vote for incumbents from other neighborhoods?

#help

"deflect the public fear, not policy debate."

example: wearing a seatbelt reduces the risk of death in a car accident, deflecting the fact that increased use of the car itself would increase the rate of car accident

A. Risk of cancer (nuclear power plant < sunshine). Deflect the fact one policy is safer than the other

B. Risk of death (urban = suburb), no policy debate or deflection

C. "Should not influence policy", not related to the policy debate or deflection

D. Account for the third factor, again has nothing to do with the policy debate or deflection

E. Lack of deflection in this AC.

oh wow, i actually didn't catch the assumption even the second time when I reviewed this question, i used poe to get this one right.

P: The price paid for a new car increased to individual income

(assumption: we're talking about everything under the individual domain)

C: price paid for car relative to income > price paid for car relative to income 25 years ago. (before I only spend 25% of my income, now I need to spend 45% of my income.)

A: This couldn't be weaker because it introduced this "more than one wage earner per household," Honestly I think we're talking about individuals here so what does 1+ wage earner have to do anything about this?

B: how come a used car has anything to do with this? we're talking about purchasing a new car

C: I chose this one on my first try, and I think this one actually strengthens it...If after inflation and my income declined, now looking back at the price paid per car, it makes sense that on average I need to pay more to buy a new car

D: new car sales increasing > pop increasing doesn't say anything. We're talking about avg car prices here.

E: The prices are driven up not because what the individuals paid for the car has increases. The individuals' price paid prob stayed the same, but a larger percentage of non-individuals are buying more expensive cars.

is this the case for all the "the only" phrases?

Against or Abstain

Abstain -> voter decided

?

C: /Abstain

The ? is probably /voter decided -> /abstain aka we don't want the matter to be taken into the hands of voters

A. assumes that the voter will decide in favor, and we don't really know that

B. We don't want voters to decide. perfect

C: what in favor?

d: /abstain -> /voter decided. I chose this one because I map out the relationship wrong,

e: nah

same here. it's so funny that it's just carrying away the TV. There's a plot going on here compared to LSAT

Almost fall for D..

translation of the stim:

many worker got ill because of t.

dunno know about t, but sitll should be responsible.

bc if the company investigated earlier, it is preventable.

preventable -> responsible

D: be responsible, whether preventable or not

E: preventable -> responsible

(understand + intention) → wrong

-poll may distort the outcome since they are not reliable

-publish one week before would give no chance for candidates to explain.

C: We should ban the publishing of polls (doesn't impair freedom of speech anyway)

weaken: attack the relationship (premise and support)

A: During the two week before election (including one week before), ppl's decision don't get influenced anywas. Weakens! The premise support the conclusion because the poll may distort the outcome. Now this is saying that poll does not affec people's actual outcome, so this effectively weakens the argument.

Not B. OK..but we are not talking about an uneven election, but allll elections. Plus, it stated that poll does not decided the outcome, which kinda strengthen it.

Not C. This one also kinda strengthen it. Ppl see the poll and decided not to go there -> poll distort the outcome.

Not D. draws attention, but so what? how is it related to the argument.

Not E. I don't think we care about whether the voters are informed about the election or not, we care about whether the p: poll distort the result justfies the C: we should ban publishing the poll.

hahaha i knew this word through playing stardew valley when I don't want to do lsat

I just realized that it's the comeptition..was rushing throught the stim

Almost went for A...

D is better since this talks about the cost and benefits, and the cost is much greater than the benefit, which weakens the argument.

P: The private sector pays much more than the sectors

P: RS has no problem finding jobs in the private sector

C: if RS are motivated by self-interest rather than duty, then they are going to private industry.

A. less likely to receive glory. If we negate: equal or more likely to receive glory, which is consistent with the argument.

B. negate: Some RS in gov earn more than RS in the private sector. still consistent with the argument, as most RS in private does not represent all RS in the private sector. The avg salary in private sector can still be much higher.

C. Not related

D. negate: if they provide very good benefits compared to private sector, then those who are driven by self-interest would choose to stay, which means they don't need other motivations.

E. if they don't work longer hours, then gov RS would still go away

This feels like a math problem tbh

Total coal supplies: the amount of coal mined but not consumed.

T1991 < T1990. No ins and outs.

T1990 = 100

T1991 = 75

T = Tpast + mined - consume

assume: the coal mined every year is the same

assume: past 1990 = 90

1990: 100 = 90 + 20 - 10

1991: 75 = 100 + 20 - 45

consumed in 1991 is much higher than mined in 1991

My problem with this question is that I was trying to connect Hydrogen info and Li info. I wrote the assumption as "Temp to burn H are same or lower compared to temp to burn Li."

Ouch..

I missed the "except" in Q26..and was confused as to why more than one ACs can be applied.

26: IM relies on inefficient processes (archaic and expensive).

I overthinked this one..

lol

premise:

expensive lawyers have a lower conviction rate than public defenders

conclusion:

embezzlement cases are more successful at avoiding convictions

A. This actually weakens the argument provided. When drug crimes are super lucrative, we should see a similar successful rate of avoiding convictions.

B. 1st this is not about the prosecutor. Even if the prosecutors are bad at handling financial evidence, that does not strengthen the argument that expensive lawyers have a lower conviction rate, and that's why financial crimes have a lower conviction rate

C. So what? We are talking about the rate of successfully avoiding convictions, not the numbers of each crime

D. translate it into smth I can understand: the percentage of ppl who are actual criminals for both $$ and street are the same. this put drug crime and $$ crime on the same platform of comparison, which strengthens the argument. it avoids situations like "oh but the percentage of $ crimes is lower anyways, and that's why expensive vs cheap lawyers doesn't matter"→ thought about the ideal experiment which JY talked about in one of the lessons.

E. what juries? How is it related to the discussion of expensive vs. cheap lawyers.

I used this approach to get my br round correct.

geo or worms? /worms, then geo.

answer D says: /geo. which is a direct contradiction against the stim, which weakens then reasoning

Finally, got one right!!!!!

I'm so frustrated at this point.

I always go for the opposite option (I chose D lol)

thats fine at least this is a level 4 question

i was like wtf is a social inertia lolol