Loryn knew that she needed to bring her passport or her id to the airport. She brought her id. Therefore she did not bring her passport.

This is invalid! I could have brought both!

Loryn knew that she could only fit either her passport or her id in her wallet. She brought her id in her wallet. Therefore she did not bring her passport in her wallet.

This is valid!

You cannot go to law school unless you take the LSAT

Translation

If you do not take the LSAT, then you cannot go to law school

If go to law school then you took the LSAT.

Blackouts will occur unless the heat wave abates.

Translation:

If the heat wave does not abate then blackouts will occur!

Wrinkles will occur unless you get Botox.

Translation

If you do not get Botox, then you will get wrinkles!!

/ W -> B

If wrinkles did not occur as you age then you got Botox

/B -> W

If you don’t get botox, wrinkles will occur as you age

What it’s not saying:

if you got wrinkles then you did not get Botox. This is not true!! You can still get wrinkles even if you get Botox!

Chlamydiae can grow only where their host cells grow.

You can win the lottery only when you buy a ticket 

win -> buy ticket

ch grow -> host grow

/host grow -> /ch grow

Cruise ships make unscheduled stops only when the necessities of safety demand that such course of action is prudent.

you can win the lottery only when you buy a ticket 

win -> buy ticket

stop -> nec 

/nec -> /stop

Businesses do the environmentally “right” thing only if doing so makes good business sense.

The only way businesses do the environmentally right thing is if doing so makes $

do good environment -> $

/$ -> /do good environment

The only way to be counted as late is if you arrive 5 minutes late. This does not mean that arriving late guarantees that you will be counted late.

you will win the lottery only if you buy a lottery ticket.

I bought a lottery ticket.

Therefore, I won the lottery!

Invalid!!

Another way to word the premise could be:

The only way to win the lottery is to buy a lottery ticket.

If the real estate market is not crashing then zombies are not attacking.

Did not obtain = did not occur

The more stressed I am, the more I weight.

Thus being stressed causes me to gain weight

Or gaining weight causes me to be stressed

I’ve gained 10 pounds. - phenomenon

This must be due to me stress eating while studying for the LSAT - proposed causal statement

Weaken the argument-

Aliens have been secretly adding sticks of butter to my smoothies

strengthen the argument -

Aliens have not been secretly adding sticks of butter to my smoothies

Which one of the referenced hypothesis in the text did she actually do research on? A... hard to catch this in the moment of the test but a reminder of how important it is to read the question CAREFULLY!

Main story of the passage we need to understand

many immature nerve cells made in developing organisms are programmed to die. To make up for this death and to account for volume, NGF is used

Question: the passage most strongly supports WOTF?

A. We don;t have enough information about anti-NGF to make this assumption

B. there is no mention of this

C. a few nerve cells that connect with target cells, directed by NGF, are actually needed by the organism. Even if they die from NGF not being present or from anti-NGF, that doesn't mean they aren't needed.

D. There is no mention of this in the passage.

E. found that, when embryos are in the process of forming their nervous systems, they produce many more nerve cells than are finally required, the number that survives eventually adjusting itself to the volume of tissue to be supplied with nerves. because some die, those some will never connect to target cells.

B. if it is true that THE lands now cultivated by specialty crop businesses are owned by THE descendants of Chines settles were formerly swamp lands.

The lands were formerly swamp lands - strip out the modifiers first.

80% of the area (what area - Pacific Coast) 's crop land is now irrigated and the region is currently the top producer of specialty crop. Part of this was done by the input of Chinese settlers due to their interruptions with the land. what is this trying to say?

most of the land is usable and profitable because of what the Chinese settlers did.

B says this land was formerly swamp land but is now usable. this supports the conclusion!

Strip out the modifiers to indentify the main point!

Reading is important

A plan v the plan

I chose E because it said dept store is offering a plan to holders. I guess if had said the plan, it would have been correct. And even though the first paragraph said something is designed to only be for active and retied autoworkers and their families, it doesn't mean that it couldn't have expanded to other members

Key word correspond

My takeaways after missing this:

pay attention to the flow and less attention to the descriptive words

A. description -> summary of results -> proposed refinements ... this does not follow the flow

B. an evaluation -> a comparison to past -> authors approval.. author did not approve and not comparison of past was made

C. present proposal -> discussion of possible results -> author rejects .. this does not match the flow

D. description -> reasoning for an against -> author's concern .. yep that matches!

E. explanation -> evaluation of the value -> presentation of data. This does not match the flow

@LorynAlston My takeaway from A is it is ruling out that genetic differences are due to breeding with the native salmon. To me, 'neither' means the shallow and deep group BOTH did not breed with the native salmon ruling out breeding with other groups as a cause for genetic differences.

@SebaNassiri I see your point!

We want to be lawyers so let's argue!!

Pretend this is our uncle at thanksgiving with different political views than us:

He say what the MR says, how can we weaken his argument?

okay so you say that adequate pn care decreases the risk of low brith weight because moms that did not receive adequate pn care are more likely to have babies with lb weight?

B.

Well what if I told you that some of the records are incorrect in classifying those moms as having adequate pn care.. your argument is weakened !

A. well what if I told you that many babies can still have normal birth weight even if they didn't have adequate pn care. Uncle - well I never said all babies would not have low bw

C. well what if I told you that lbw babies are often premi babies... uncle - so what, my argument still stands as it has nothing to do with pn care!

D. well what if I told you some premi babies had mothers that got adequate pn care and still had low birth weight! Uncle- I never said all babies born from moms with adequate pn care would be protected from low bw. I just said their risk was lowered.

E. Well what if I told you moms that get adequate pn care are less likely to have premi babies and there for less likely to have low weight babies. - uncle my point exactly!

How do we know it is a correlation v causation ? In the video example he said smoking is correlated with cancer. But we know that sometimes smoking causes cancer - not always but sometimes.

The question says it decreases the risk significantly.

Wearing your seatbelt decreases your risk of death in a car accident. sometime, not wearing your seatbelt can cause your death in a. car accident. I guess the correlation is those that have the same effect from a different cause?

Effect = decreased risk of LBW

Proposed Cause: adequate PN Care

Evidence:

PM = higher risk of LBW

adequate pn care = less likely LBW

A. many (at least 2 or more) babies are NBW from moms with good pnc - many people that exercise develop type 2 diabetes, most people that exercise have less of a risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Not good enough to weaken

B. PM = LBW and recorded as not having adequate prenatal care- this invalidates one piece of evidence because one of the main groups with low bw is not unclear the cause for that weight

C. being classified as pm does not hurt the argument because that has no tie to pn care in the evidence

D. does not relate to the argument. this is saying some babies may have low birth weight for other reasons but our claim is a decreased risk from PN care

E. Not having a premi does not mean it is not low birthweight. that's like saying if your child is not a boy, it won't be a prof althete. There are other ways to be a prof athlete other than being a boy, even if most prof athletes are men (making that up have no clue if that is true or not).

For A to be correct, we have to assume that when the wetlands dry up, the crayfish are still present in the chambers filled with water otherwise it wouldn't be that they survive where the crayfish are present but rather they survive where they were present..

Step 1: Identify the argument

Argument: a factor in the development of brains and intelligence is control on internal body temp

Step 2: Identify evidence and assumption

Evidence: brain is a chemical machine, chem reactions need temp control and any org that control its temp ensures those reaction happen at proper temp.

Assumption: the development of the brain and intelligence needs chemical reactions to happen at proper temps

A. does not help support the argument

B. does not help support the argument

C. if the brain cannot support intelligence if temps are not stable. aka a factor in the support of intelligence is stable temps. Cannot support does not tell us anything about the development of brain or intelligence.

D. the development of intelligence is dependent to the chemical reactions which are subject to uncontrolled temps. aka to control the of temps is needed for the development of intelligence. - this is restating the argument with the assumption included.

E. not being able to control temps causes unpredictable chem processes - this does clear up the assumptions