Student Question:

I thought the argument's flaw could be about witnesses and how the arg is only focusing on scientists as a part of the community and doesn't consider other community members but the answer choice doesn't resolve the other clearly apparent flaw regarding the reliability portion right?

Tutor Response:

I see where you’re coming from in that this argument is only focused on the opinion of scientists, but that’s not actually a problem in the context of this question. The people most qualified to make judgements on the accuracy of DNA evidence are scientists, so they’re the opinions we care most about. As an example, imagine that we’re trying to figure out the best way to perform brain surgery. We would care about the opinions of doctors and medical experts, but it wouldn’t make sense to consult normal people. The same idea applies here, as scientists are the ones qualified to make these judgements.

And a quick note on the use of the word “community” in this question: It’s referring to the scientific community specifically, so this is another reason why we only care about the opinions of scientists.

Student Question:

Why (C) is incorrect?. I thought the critic was pointing out the difference between the historian’s conclusion (an established certainty of trade) and how no longer engaged statute books are unremoved (an established possibility of trade).

Tutor Answer:

The biggest reason that C is incorrect is that the historian doesn't actually establish anything certain. They only say that the tariffs "suggest" trade, which is very weak language. For example, if I tell you that finding John's fingerprints at a crime scene "suggests" that he's the murderer, I definitely have not established with certainty that he is the murderer. The historian even goes so far as to admit that there is no direct evidence of the timber trade, providing further support that he hasn't established anything certain. This tiny distinction is what makes C incorrect, and is part of why this is a tricky question.

Student Question:

I have a question about the question stem. Reading it makes it seem like a Strengthen question, but the explantation for the question states that it is actually a psuedo assumption. How can I make the distinction? Another question is — does it not really matter (whether is is pseudo assumption or strengthen) because either way C is the better answer to strengthen/bridge the gap for the reason being that is shows they do not consider living in economic prosperity to be a tragedy? I was stuck between C and D but thought to myself “well what if they do not get the benefits of economic prosperity” —- and D showcases they do. And I now realize the problem with that is we do not know if having that $$ leads to them not feeling as if the change is a tragedy. Thanks!

Tutor Answer:

This is a good question! This particular question stem is a bit unusual for a pseudo-sufficient assumption question, so I understand the confusion. Most of the time it will specifically ask us for a principle that most helps to justify a conclusion, and this word principle helps us better identify this question type. This stem omits the word “principle,” but keeps the same wording of “does the most to justify the conclusion of the argument,” which helps us to identify that this is some sort of pseudo-sufficient assumption question. That being said, it’s not entirely necessary to know that this is a PSA question instead of a strengthen question. Our goal is to find the answer choice that provides the strongest support for the conclusion for either type, so you can certainly get to the right answer either way. It’s still helpful to know that this is a PSA question though, as these questions are typically asking for broad/abstract principles instead of outside evidence, but again not entirely necessary.

And for your analysis of C and D, you’re absolutely correct. Even if D is true and the farmers make way more money than they did, we don’t know if they are happy about that. I can easily imagine a farmer that was forced off their land being unhappy regardless of the money they make, and D doesn’t help us know how they feel about the situation. C does, as it tells us that yes, they care more about money than their farming roots. This very strongly supports the conclusion that they shouldn’t consider this change to be a tragedy.

Student Question:

I’m having a huge issue with saving time on these question styles. Are there any time saving strategies or trends I can use? Do I just need to redo the lessons? I end up getting to them at the end of the drills/sections and I’m not giving myself enough of a time cushion to map them all out.

Tutor Answer:

When it comes to speeding up at conditional reasoning, the first recommendation I always give is to practice translating conditional statements until it becomes natural. If it takes you more than a couple seconds to translate "George will be promoted to shift supervisor only if Helen resigns" to George promoted-> Helen resigns, then you still have work to do. I recommend redoing all of the Core Curriculum Skill Builders over the group 1-4 indicator words until you only need a couple seconds to recognize the relationship in each question. Ex., Skill Builder - Group 1 Translations. Once you're comfortable with those, start doing drills using the conditional reasoning and parallel tags. These types of questions tend to have a bunch of different conditional statements, so they're great diagramming practice. If you successfully complete these two drills, I'm willing to bet you'll find conditional reasoning questions much easier.

And for improving speed at parallel questions in general, I highly encourage reviewing the Core Curriculum lessons over parallel or analogy questions. In particular, I would focus on learning the "Shallow Dip" strategy. This is a method of taking a zoomed-out look at the answer choices so you don't have to focus on reading every single word, and it's a great way to save time.

Student Question

PT142.S1.Q16-I understand why D is right, but when reviewing, I’m still confused on how B and E aren’t flaws of the argument. Isn’t it flawed that the author used the math example to generalize to all other types of coursework since math is different than other disciplines? Thank you!

Tutor Response

First, let’s break down the stimulus a bit.

The Debater says there is hierarchy in lecturing. Why? Because the lecturer has more mastery than the student. But then the Debater says that people learn best from peer interaction. So therefore, they conclude that hierarchy is a big weakness of lecturing.

Next the Respondent says: Well all teaching and learning is technically hierarchical. Why? Because all teaching and learning starts simple then gets complex. Like in math where people start with arithmetic before trying to learn calculus. The Respondent concludes that because of that, hierarchy is a strength of lecturing.

As you know, the flaw here is that the Respondent uses “hierarchy” to refer to the order of learning concepts from simple to complex. But that’s not how the Debater used the term; the Debater used “hierarchy” to describe lectures having more power than students. That’s what (D) gets at.

The first problem with (B) is that The Respondent doesn't argue about teaching methods. They are really just focused on the structure of learning in general. But the bigger problem here is that the Respondent told us that all teaching and learning goes from simple to complex. Since that is a premise, we must take that as true. They are just using math as one example.

But since all teaching and learning goes from simple to complex, there’s no problem with using math as an example of it.

(E) Like (B), the author did not take for granted (assume) that math is a good example. Rather, the author explicitly stated that it is. They said that all subjects must go from simple to complex. Also, the Respondent doesn't talk about the "conceptual structure" of math. They’re just focused on the ordering of how things are taught.

Student Question

Simple question, in the last sentence and conclusion why would we NOT map it out like (Info accurate→Reveal Identity) why is it just (Reveal Identity)? Thanks.

Tutor Response

Saying “even if” is actually not a conditional indicator at all. That’s why we wouldn’t diagram it.

Think of “even if” as saying “whether or not.”

So if we said, "A is true even if B is false," that just means "A is true whether or not B is false" which is essentially just saying "A is always true.”

Here, the author is telling us that no matter what, the journalist will reveal the informant’s identity. Revealing the informant’s identity is not triggered by anything else; it doesn’t need another condition (such as the information being accurate or not) to happen in order for it to happen. It's going to happen regardless. Because of that, there is no conditional relationship.

Student Question

My understanding is that 'some' followed by 'most' does not yield any inferences. For instance, from A ‑m→ B ←s→ C, can we infer A ←s→ C? My understanding is that we can't infer this. Or does this not apply because it's causal.

Tutor Response

Something to remember here is that most strongly supported questions, we are combining facts. But the combination doesn’t have to be true like on a “must be true” question. It just has to make sense. So we are looking for the answer that’s best supported by the given facts.

If you can find something that’s proven, that’s great. But if you can’t find something that’s 100% proven, that’s okay. Pick the one that’s closest to proven.

Here, we have three statements:

1. Stress often causes high blood pressure.

2. Some people can lower their blood pressure by calming their minds and reducing stress.

3. Most people can calm their minds by exercising.

Combining those statements gives us this:

Exercise ➞ calm mind ➞ reduce stress ➞ lower blood pressure

These are not conditional statements. The arrows just show which way the ideas flow. What we can infer here is that it sounds like it’s possible that exercise can lower stress and blood pressure. But it’s not strict conditional logic.

Exercise calms the mind (for most people), and calming the mind reduces stress and lowers blood pressure for some people. If most people can calm their minds with exercise, it definitely seems likely that at least some (some = at least one or more) people would be able to lower their blood pressure that way. Again, this is not perfectly proven but it doesn’t need to be on this question.

Student Question:

When J.Y interpreted often as some arrow, is it okay to consider for the future that often can be structured as some arrow? Or it's the unique instance.

Tutor Response:

Yes, that is something you can apply anytime you see "often" on an LSAT question.

On the LSAT, words like “often” are treated as meaning at least sometimes, which is why we can translate it to “some.”

“Often” doesn’t mean always or most of the time in a strict logical sense. It’s a vague, everyday word that could mean different things to different people. But logically, we can be certain of one thing: if something happens “often,” it must happen more than zero times. In other words, at least once, and probably multiple times.

So for conditional logic purposes, we can safely say: often → some

We don’t care how many times, just that it’s not zero.

Student Question

Could you explain why C is the correct answer?

Tutor Response

Let’s start with breaking down the stimulus.

They tell us that studies show that fancy sports foods have exactly the same kind and amount of nutrients as regular food from the grocery store. So basically, there is no difference in nutrients between fancy sports foods and regular grocery store food.

But! Sports foods cost way more than regular foods, they tell us. They are two to three times more expensive.

Based on those two premises (which we must accept as true), they conclude that very few athletes would buy sports foods if there weren’t expensive ad campaigns.

Basically, the speaker here is trying to convince us that if there weren’t ads for the fancy sports foods, barely any athletes would buy them because they don’t have any more nutrients than the regular grocery store food but they cost way more.

Are you convinced? I don’t think I am.

Notice that the argument is assuming that expensive advertisements are the only thing prompting athletes to buy sports foods. But we don’t know if that’s true! What if there are a bunch of athletes who buy the specialty sports foods just because they want to look cool? Or what if it just tastes way better than the grocery store food? Maybe the taste is so much better that the athletes don’t even care about the higher price. Or what if getting the sports foods is way more convenient for athletes than going to the regular grocery store?

There could be a lot of other reasons that athletes might still buy sports foods.

Note that I did all this analysis before even turning to the answer choices. There is a lot of value in understanding the argument and poking holes at it up front before even reading an answer choice.

Our job here is to weaken the argument.

That’s what (C) does for us. It’s giving us an alternative reason for why athletes might still buy sports food even though it’s more expensive. This answer choice is basically coming along and saying, “yeah the athletes know sports food has the same nutritional value for a higher price but they’re not looking for the best bang for their buck; they are looking for the most convenient option to throw in their bag before training.”

Student Question

I’m still confused on the ideal experiment questions. Specifically, this one. Can you explain the strategy to reveal the correct answer behind these questions. And what’s the criteria for revealing the correct answer? Are there any patterns in the wrong answers I can look out for?

Tutor Answer

Ideally, an experiment will start with a large sample of people. It will also assign people randomly to a test group and a control group.

Why is it important to randomly assign people? Because otherwise we might run into things like self-selection or other factors being the reason for the results. Let’s think about a couple of examples.

Imagine a study finds: Kids who bring umbrellas to school get wet just as often as kids who don’t.

The researcher concludes: “Umbrellas don’t keep you dry.”

But what’s wrong? Well, kids who bring umbrellas are the ones who walk to school in the rain. Kids who don’t bring umbrellas are often driven. So the umbrella group started out at higher risk of getting wet. Even if umbrellas help, the results could still look equal.

Here's another.

A study compares: People who wear knee braces when running and people who don’t. It turns out that both groups have the same injury rates.

The researcher concludes: “Knee braces don’t prevent injuries.”

But what if people who wear braces are those who already have weak knees? Then equal injury rates actually suggest braces helped.

One last one.

A study finds: People who drink coffee are just as tired as people who don’t.

The researcher concludes: “Coffee doesn’t reduce tiredness.”

What’s wrong with that? Well what if people who drink coffee are often more sleep-deprived to begin with. So equal tiredness could mean coffee actually helps.

To approach a question like this, start as you would for other questions. What is the author concluding or what is the author trying to convince me of? Then identify what the premises or support is. Why does the author believe what they are concluding? Then, understand why the premises don’t prove the main conclusion. Think about what the author may be missing or not considering. Think about alternative explanations.

On this question, the researcher assumes that there isn’t another explanation for why joggers who stretch get injured as much as joggers who don’t stretch. The author is overlooking other possibilities. What if joggers who are especially prone to injuries are more likely to stretch before jogging? That is what the correct answer choice points out here. That stretching group already had just as many injuries as the non-stretchers, but if they didn't stretch, according to this answer choice, it would have been even worse.

Common incorrect answer choices on a Weaken question like this are ones that don't directly address or impact the argument's main conclusion. Incorrect answers often give irrelevant information, strengthen the argument rather than undermine it, or don't introduce new evidence that challenges the premises. Wrong answers may also give information that doesn’t affect the argument's validity or simply restate the premises without providing any new perspective. Also look out for answer choices that use vague language such as “affects.” We don’t know whether the effect is positive or negative, so it wouldn't do anything for the argument.

Student Question

Would this line of reasoning be solid for me to use separately and/or together?:

Rule of Thumb:

• Inference Questions: New info is POISON. (Stay inside the lines).

• Assumption/Strengthen/Weak Questions: New info is often the CURE. (It's the "missing plank" that connects the lines).

----

Also, D introduced a limit to the computer while the stimulus strongly implies that there is no limit with "surveying all the possible types of instances..."

Even though E introduced something new, if it was negated, the conclusion of "computer-assisted proofs involving astronomically many types of instances should not be accepted." falls apart because the use of such program WOULD satisfy the requirement of verification.

Tutor Answer

Your inference rule of thumb is great. For inference-type questions, we want to avoid new information as much as we possibly can.

Your Assumption/Strengthen/Weaken rule of thumb works too, but I would caution you on taking it too far. New info is oftentimes what we're looking for, but we also have to take into account how that new information affects the argument. It's good to recognize that new info is okay in these question types, but make sure you're not choosing answer choices purely because they introduce something new.

And for 122.2.22, I wouldn't say that D is necessarily introducing a limit to computers. It tells us about mathematical proofs that don't need to be solved by a computer, e.g. a human could do them on their own, but it doesn't rule out the possibility that a computer could still solve them. For example, 2+2=4 doesn't need to be done by a computer, but it definitely still can be.

And for E, you're absolutely correct! If computers can independently verify each step in a mathematical proof, we have no reason to not accept proofs verified in such a way.

Student Question:

Could you explain how an AC that says “Intelligence requires complex, goal-oriented behavior” would be wrong?

Tutor Answer:

First off, this is a great question to ask yourself. You will see some sneaky assumption answer choices that flip conditional relationships around, so it's good to understand why these are wrong.

Let's quickly recap the stimulus so we're on the same page: It tells us that humans can do complicated things to try and accomplish their goals without really being aware of what they're doing. For example, think about about a pro tennis player going on "auto-pilot" when they're playing. They're performing a very complex task with the goal of winning, but they're not thinking about every action they're performing. From this fact, the author then tries to conclude that proving animals are smart doesn't necessarily make them aware of what they're doing.

On the surface, their logic seems to make sense. If humans can do these complex things without being aware of it, perhaps animals can too. But the problem is that we don't know if doing complicated things to try and accomplish a goal actually makes you intelligent. If it doesn't take intelligence for a pro tennis player to play tennis on auto-pilot, for example, then we have no clue whether doing intelligent things requires conscious thought and awareness.

This gets us to answer choice A. It tells us that whenever people are trying to accomplish complex goals, this proves that they're smart.

Now let's think about the inverse of this statement: Being intelligent requires performing complex, goal-oriented behavior. This isn't necessary because negating this answer choice does nothing to hurt the argument. We can look at negating the answer choice like this; I'm sure you can think of some very intelligent people that don't apply themselves. They're super smart, but they never actually try and do hard things to accomplish their goals. If this is true, and intelligence doesn't require complex, goal-oriented behavior, the argument is totally fine. It could still be true that complex, goal-oriented behavior proves you're intelligent, so people can do intelligent things without being aware of it, so maybe animals can do the same thing.