Student Question:

I do understand that C is the best answer but I don’t see how the stringent regulations reduce accident rates bc I would argue it mitigates impact or lowers accident rates (like injuries). I don’t see how it lowers the rate of crash- stringent regulations.

Tutor Response:

I'd be happy to help answer your question. If I'm understanding correctly, you're thinking that the stringent car safety requirements—including the required use of seat belts and annual safety inspections—would mitigate the effects of car crashes, like injuries, but not actually prevent the accidents themselves. That's a great point, which I hadn't considered! I agree, I don't think that something like seatbelts would reduce collisions, but rather prevent or mitigate any injuries resulting from a collision.

One important LSAT distinction though: for RRE questions, the test isn’t asking us to argue against the stimulus. Our job is to assume the stimulus is true and make sense of it. In this case, here’s how the reconciliation works: it might be true that seatbelt rules mostly reduce injuries after crashes (severity), not collisions themselves. But other stringent regulations, like mandatory inspections, actually remove unsafe conditions before a car is on the road, which can reduce the number of crashes that occur at all (frequency). Accordingly, it is possible that the stringent requirements do have the effect of reducing car accidents.

@MarcusTsang Just following up! Your question has now received a tutor explanation. Thanks so much for your patience, and again, our apologies for the delay.

@StudiousstudentJust following up on your question! I do see that you submitted a question regarding PT127.S1.Q24 about a day ago (please tell me if that's not the one you're referring to), and you’ve now received a reply from our team—thanks for flagging it! We apologize for the delay. Because many students are preparing for the upcoming LSAT administration, our volume has temporarily increased, which can extend response times a bit beyond our usual 1-day median window. Appreciate your patience!

Student Question

I got quite confused by this conclusion here. I thought that it would be possible for the diplodocus to eat high leaves, as I interpreted the conclusion to be “Diplodocus must have fed on plants on or near the ground regardless of whether it ate from high leaves or not”. Alternatively, “the diplodocus must only have fed on plants on or near the ground.” Admittedly, I understand why E is wrong, but I spent a lot of time hunting for another required assumption because nowhere officially in the statement does the prompt explicitly say that the dinosaur must not eat high leaves. Where did I go wrong in this understanding?

Tutor Answer

That's a great question. Let's take another look at the conclusion:

• "Thus, Diplodocus must have fed on plants on or near the ground, or underwater."

It sounds like you interpreted the conclusion to leave open the possibility that Diplodocus also fed on high leaves. If you take the conclusion in isolation, then your interpretation certainly seems plausible!

The problem is that the rest of the argument points away from your interpretation. If we look at some of the argument's context/premises, it becomes clear that the author assumes there’s no other way Diplodocus could have eaten high-growing vegetation besides raising its long neck in the air. Here it is:

• "Paleontologists had long supposed that the dinosaur Diplodocus browsed for high-growing vegetation such as treetop leaves by raising its very long neck. But now Support computer models have shown that the structure of Diplodocus's neck bones would have prevented such movement."

From that, we can tell that the author is arguing against the paleontologists's position (based on the evidence offered by computer modules.) So, in truth, the author is concluding this: "Diplodocus must have fed on plants on or near the ground, or underwater (and not on high-growing vegetation)."

Student Question

What indication do we have for the part of AC D that says that the time would potentially be wasted? Surely we can assume that some benefits can come from the work on the film even if was not fully authentically presented

Tutor Answer

That's a great question. Here's a very important rule of thumb to know for RC: the question stem will often times tell you what type of support the right answer choice is going to have. The two types of support are explicit support and implicit support.

So let's take a look at the question stem: It can be inferred from the passage that the author holds which one of the following views regarding the "directors' cuts" described in the final paragraph?

The question stems tells us that the correct answer choice is going to be implicitly supported by the passage, since we're having to make an inference. In other words, we shouldn't expect answer choice D to be directly spelled out anywhere in the passage.

However, there is plenty of implicit support that indicates that the author would agree that the time expended in producing the movies is potentially wasted if no attention is paid to other aspects of authenticity. The main purpose of the passage is to criticize these film retrospectives. The author calls them "inappropriate" and "utterly shorn of the program that once gave these films life and context." Based on all of this, we can reasonably infer that the author would agree that if we don’t pay attention to context, creating an “authentic” director’s cut is a waste of time and effort.

Student Question

Hi! I’m wondering why “auto mechanics and “mechanics” are considered the same thing? I got confused when reading the stimulus since I assumed they were different items and could not be the same, since it should have said “Furthermore, most auto mechanics with extensive experience”. These types of subtle differences confuse me, and I’m not sure how much attention I should pay to them. Thanks!

Tutor Answer

Great question—and you’ve actually zeroed in on the very reason the argument is flawed. This is a flaw question, so we’re not supposed to assume the author’s reasoning is valid. Instead, our job is to notice where the logic makes an unjustified leap.

In this case, the author starts by talking about auto mechanics and then switches to talking about mechanics in general. Those two groups overlap but aren’t necessarily the same—“mechanics” could also include airplane mechanics, bike mechanics, etc. The conclusion assumes that what’s true for the larger group (mechanics) must also be true for the smaller group (auto mechanics with extensive experience), and that’s the flaw.

On the LSAT, small wording shifts in category or scope are important to note. If you see a term change—even adding or dropping a single word—it’s worth asking: Did the author justify moving from one term to the other? If not, you may have found the flaw. So here, your instinct that “auto mechanics” and “mechanics” aren’t identical was exactly the right thing to notice!

Student Question

How did you know which order to put enforceable/efficient in

Tutor Answer

That's a great question! The answer is a little tricky. Let's isolate the statements from the stimulus that we need to translate into Lawgic:

• Premise: "the [gambling] laws are impossible to enforce." Let's think about what that's saying: if it's a gambling law, then it's impossible to enforce. We can translate that as G --> /E

• Premise: "when a law fails to be effective, it should not be a law." The word "when" is a Group 1 logical indicator, so we can translate that statement into lawgic as /Eff --> /L

• Conclusion: "That is why there should be no legal prohibition against gambling." The word "no" is a Group 4 logical indicator, so we can translate that statement into lawgic as G --> /L

So here are our premises:

G --> /E

/Eff --> /L

------------

G --> /L

Right now, there's a gap in the argument. How can we fix it? By bridging our premises like so: /E -->

/Eff

If we connect those two ideas, then our lawgic becomes air-tight: G --> /E --> /Eff --> /L

That's how we know which order to put enforceable/effective in—by finding the gap in the premises, and figuring out how to bridge it. Answer choice A supplies the missing link: /E -->

/Eff

Student Question

Can you expand on the flaw present here? In the future, how can I know if the flaw is based on weak argumentation? What would be a giveaway?

Tutor Answer

That's a great question. To get better at recognizing recurring flaws on the LSAT, I highly recommend completing the module on flaw questions in the Core Curriculum. That module contains an Argument Flaw Cheat Sheet, which is a resource that really comes in handy. ​

The flaw presented here PT149.S4.Q11 definitely comes up on the LSAT every do often. So what's the problem with the argument? Let's take a look.

Some citizens argue that, because users of a proposed trail would likely litter an area, that the development of the trail should not proceed. The author asserts that because most trail users will be dedicated hikers who care about the environment, the particular complaint about hikers’ likelihood to litter is groundless.

What the author is doing is basically saying: "look your argument is bad—so we should reach the opposite conclusion to what you've proposed." The flaw here is that the author attacks one reason given for the opposing conclusion, and then assumes that means the conclusion itself must be wrong. However, even if the litter concern is overstated, there could still be other reasons why building the trail is a bad idea. Disproving one premise doesn’t prove the opposite conclusion.

Here's how to spot this in the future: the argument’s structure is basically “your reasoning is bad ⇒ therefore the opposite of your conclusion must be true.”

Student Question

i am so lost as to how to go about this answer and how to get the right answer

Tutor Answer

This is a really tricky question! This is a sufficient assumption question, so our job is to find the answer choice that, if added to the premises, guarantees the conclusion is valid.

Let's breakdown and simplify the argument:

• Premise: To calculate the gravitation force between two celestial bodies, we only need to know their mass and the distance between them. We don't care what the bodies are made of.

• Conclusion: We don't need a theory of the structure and constitution of the Sun and the planets in order to calculate their orbits.

There's a glaring gap here! We went from discussing gravitational force to calculating orbits. The premises don’t say anything about what’s required or not required to calculate orbits.

Right now, the argument is assuming that we only need to know the gravitational force to calculate the orbit. But what if calculating the orbits of bodies involves more than just calculating gravitational force between them? That opens the possibility that structure/constitution could be important for other factors that are relevant to calculating orbits. To make the argument valid, we want to eliminate this possibility. We want to establish that in order to calculate orbits, we don’t need anything else besides calculating gravitational force.

That is exactly what answer choice B does:

• According to the Newtonian theory, the calculation of planetary orbits requires considering only their gravitational forces.

If we assume answer choice B, then the argument's conclusion is guaranteed to follow from the premises.

Student Question

Hello! I am really confused about why A is wrong, could you please break it down and explain it to me? Thank you!

Tutor Answer

I'd be happy to provide additional clarification on answer choice A. Let's take a look:

• Wednesday is the most common day on which Zack's offers half-priced coffee all day.

Is that statement supported by the stimulus? No! Let's explore why.

Here's what the stimulus tells us:

• Zack's Coffeehouse schedules free poetry readings almost every Wednesday.

• Zack's offers half-priced coffee all day on every day that a poetry reading is scheduled.

That's a very limited number of facts! We have absolutely no information about what goes on during any other day of the week. For all we know, poetry readings are scheduled for each and every single Monday. In that case, Mondays could be the most common day on which Zack's offers half-priced coffee all day—not Wednesday. We just do not have enough information to support answer choice A. Therefore, we can confidently eliminate it!

Student Question

how to know if the referenced text is a premise vs principle in order to decide between options B and E

Tutor Answer

Great questions! I'll take them one at a time.

How can we tell if a statement is a premise? On the LSAT, you can usually tell a premise by its job in the argument—it’s there to support something else (the conclusion), not to be supported itself. A premise gives evidence, facts, or reasons meant to support another statement. Ask yourself: If I removed this statement, would the author’s case be weaker? If yes, it’s probably a premise!

For this question, the statement ("people consume salt in quantities that would provide iron in significant amounts") makes the conclusion more likely to be true. It supports the conclusion by showing how salt is broadly-used and would therefore make a global difference.

Answer choice E is wrong because the referenced text is a premise, not a principle. On the LSAT, a principle is basically a broad, general rule or standard that can be applied to specific situations.

Think of it as the “big-picture” idea that works like a bridge:

• It’s more general than a premise.

• It can apply to lots of different specific cases.

• It tells you what should happen or how to judge something in certain circumstances.

Student Question

Hi, I’m frustrated with this question... I got it wrong because I interpreted "not much more" in AC A as still leaving room for the possibility that that a young tree starts growing under a fully mature tree, even if it is a recently mature tree, and we wanted to avoid that. Like if a tree takes 100 years to mature, what is no much more than 100 years, up to 115? I thought the stimulus would not support that overlap.

Tutor Answer

Thank you for reaching out. Totally fair to be frustrated by this question—it's a really tricky one.

You’re right that AC (A) leaves room for a younger tree to be growing alongside a fully mature tree. That’s okay here because the stimulus and the answer choice are talking in relative terms: the age spread of the stand compared to the time to maturity.

Let’s plug in concrete numbers to see it:

• Suppose it takes a white pine about 100 years to mature.

• In a particular stand, the oldest tree is 250 years old and the youngest is 145.

• The age gap is 250 − 145 = 105 years → that’s “not much more” than 100.

What does that mean conceptually? The trees are essentially from the same cohort—their ages cluster within a little over one “maturity-length.” When that cohort reaches maturity, the canopy they create shades the forest floor. And since white pines cannot regenerate in their own shade, new white pine seedlings fail to establish.

“Not much more” doesn’t require eliminating every imaginable overlap. The key is that the age spread in the stand is still small enough that most of the trees are from the same generation. Thus, answer choice A does follow from the facts provided in the stimulus.

Student Question

Hi! could you have also said that this argument was confusing sufficiency and necessity? The premises presents C → A and B and then says “[A and B]Humans] thefore [C] Humans” thank you!

Tutor Question

That's a great question! I see why you might think this is confusing sufficiency and necessity—the structure in symbolic form certainly resembles a reversal. But in this case, the argument isn’t actually making that mistake, because the two statements are about different subjects.

The premises say:

• If it's a computer, then it has both A and B

• The human mind has both A and B

The conclusion says:

• The human mind is a type of computer

Since the first statement is about computers and the second statement is about humans, there’s no direct conditional reversal going on—the terms don’t match in a way that would make it a classic “confusing sufficient and necessary” flaw. Instead, the real flaw is that the argument illegitimately analogizes from one group to another.

Student Question

I think I need another explanation to this because while I, on the surface, understand what JY is saying I dont fully understand it and dont think I could answer another question like this in another question.

Tutor Answer

Let's take a look:

• Recent studies have demonstrated that smokers are more likely than nonsmokers to develop heart disease. Other studies have established that smokers are more likely than others to drink caffeinated beverages. Therefore, even though drinking caffeinated beverages is not thought to be a cause of heart disease, there is a positive correlation between drinking caffeinated beverages and the development of heart disease.

Let's simplify what we know:

• smokers are more likely to develop heart disease

• smokers are more likely to drink caffeinated beverages

Here's what we don't know:

• we don't know how many smokers develop heart disease

• we don't know how many smokers drink caffeinated beverages

This creates a problem for the argument! Maybe 20% of smokers develop heart disease, while 40% of smokers drink caffeinated beverages. If that were true, then it's possible that the smokers who develop heart disease and the smokers who drink caffeinated beverages are completely different people! In other words, maybe there is no overlap between these two groups of smokers. This interpretation is consistent with the argument's premises—but it certainly leads to a different conclusion! It's not necessarily true that there is a positive correlation between drinking caffeinated beverages and the development of heart disease.

Answer choice A calls out this flaw! Answer choice A is saying that the smokers who drink caffeinated beverages are less likely to develop heart disease. In simpler terms, the smokers who develop heart disease and the smokers who drink caffeinated beverages generally do not overlap.

Student Question

Can’t B also strengthen the argument by suggesting that the particular number of tornadoes hitting population centers going up made them more visible and thus more observed. In other words, if the proportion of tornadoes hitting population centers went up instead of the total number and enabled more observations, doesn’t that strengthen the argument?

Tutor Answer

Let's take a look at answer choice B:

• "The number of tornadoes hitting major population centers annually has more than doubled since the 1950s."

You're absolutely right: you could, technically, interpret answer choice B to suggest that the particular number of tornadoes hitting population centers going up made them more visible and thus more observed. I guess answer choice B does leave that possibility open. If that were true, that could strengthen the argument..

However, here's how I interpreted answer choice B: it suggests that there has been an increase in the number of tornadoes. This place is getting double the amount of tornadoes!

Which interpretation is more reasonable—yours or mine? Who knows! Its true that answer choice B could be consistent with your interpretation. But it's also true that it could be consistent with my interpretation (which would actually weaken the argument)! That's the problem with answer choice B.

Answer choice B does not have anything that would support your interpretation. So, to make answer choice B work, you'd have to make unsupported assumptions about it. Thus, we can eliminate answer choice B.

Student Question

I got this question wrong because I thought sunscreens are broad spectrum, meaning they cover many different wavelenghts, UVA, UVB, etc. So even if sunscreen protects against certain wavelengths that cause sunburn, that doesn't mean it can't also protect against wavelengths that cause melanoma. Basically A does not have to destroy the argument with this reasoning, since even if the same wavelengths can't both cause sunscreen and melanoma,the sunscreen can still provide protect against both wavelengths that cause sunburn AND melanoma, since the stimulus never said sunscreen ONLY protects against sunburn causing wavelengths, only that it INCLUDES protection against sunburn causing wavelengths. Where did I go wrong here?

Tutor Answer

This is a weakening question, so the correct answer choice does not need to destroy the argument. Instead, the correct answer choice is merely going to weaken the argument (more specifically, the support that the premises give the conclusion). That is a significantly lower bar!

Let's isolate the relevant portions of the argument:

• Conclusion: People should put adequate sunblock on skin exposed to strong sunlight.

• Premise: This is because adequate sunblock prevents sunburn even if the skin is exposed to strong sunlight for a while, and overexposure to certain wavelengths of strong sunlight is the main cause of melanoma.

The doctors assume there is overlap between the wavelengths of strong sunlight that cause melanoma and the wavelengths of strong sunlight that cause sunburn.

Answer choice A weakens the argument because it attacks the doctors’ assumption that the same wavelengths that cause melanoma cause sunburn as well.

However, you're absolutely correct to point out that answer choice A does not destroy the argument! It's true that even if sunscreen protects against certain wavelengths that cause sunburn, it could also protect against wavelengths that cause melanoma. But the argument does nothing to substantiate that assumption! Answer choice A calls that out, thereby weakening the argument.

Student Question

Why C is not correct?

Tutor Response

Thanks so much for your question! (C) is definitely a trap answer choice here, and a lot of students end up picking it. Let's start by dissecting the argument in the stimulus. The author concludes that the fact that animals use sounds/gestures doesn't prove that animals use language. How do we know? Because the fact that animals use sounds/gestures doesn't prove that they use sounds/gestures to refer to objects/ideas. (C) tells us that animals don't, in fact, use sounds/gestures to refer to objects/ideas. But that isn't something we need to know in order for the argument to work! The argument is actually more about proof than animals: the conclusion is that we can't prove whether animals have language, not that animals don't in fact have language. It doesn't actually matter whether animals refer to objects/ideas, and it also doesn't actually matter whether animals possess language. All we care about is whether we can prove that animals do or don't have language, just based on their use of sounds/gestures. (D) is correct because it provides a necessary link between the premise and the conclusion: we need to know that the use of sounds/gestures to refer to objects/ideas is something that could be used to prove whether or not something is a language, and that's what (D) says.