@lebronfan Love the username. I wasn't trying to make an argument there, but I definitely could've expressed my point more clearly. The stimulus intends to include "freelance writers" as workers.

The first sentence implies this by starting "most workers" but then noting that freelance writers are unlike those other workers because they are judged for quality. It wouldn't make sense to include them in that sentence if they were not also considered workers.

Thus, the stimulus telling us that the evaluation causes them to produce "such high-quality work" we are able to comfortably pick C.

We know by virtue of these freelance writers doing it, that at least some workers do.

Student Question:

Can you further explain why E is wrong?

Tutor Answer:

Looking at the stimulus, the two conditions are:

(1) One should not play a practical joke on someone if it shows contempt for that person or

(2) if one believes it might bring significant harm to that person.

E demonstrates 1 but not 2.

Student Question:

I still don't get how we got to the answer.

Tutor Answer:

The stimulus says that:

(1) Ironically, strong laws against libel can make it impossible for anyone in the public eye to have a good reputation.

(2) For the result of strong libel laws is that, for fear of lawsuits, no one will say anything bad about public figures.

This means that with strong libel laws, nobody would speak badly about public figures. What is unclear from the stimulus alone, is why nobody speaking badly will mean that nobody has a good reputation. That could explain nobody having a bad reputation, but we need something else to justify the principle.

This is where E comes in. If it is true that "Public figures can have good reputations only if there are other public figures who have bad reputations" then we can accept that nobody being able to speak badly about public figures also means that nobody can have a good reputation.

Student Question:

From JY’s explanation, it sounds like (E) is the wrong AC because it isn't supported by A because the authorities in A would care. But, do authorities caring about the revelation of such information sufficient to prove that the law recognizes their interest? Thank you!

Tutor Answer:

For this, it is more helpful to think of the burden of proof.

E says that it is supported that "common law do not recognize the interest of public authorities in having certain types of information revealed."

The passage doesn't weigh in on whether or not common law does recognize this interest, so we are unable to pick E here. We don't need to prove or believe that it is recognized, we just need to recognize that the passage hasn't told us that common law does not.

Student Question:

I have no idea how the answer of the question weakens the argument

Tutor Answer:

The conclusion here is that "People who take vitamin C supplements tend to be healthier than average." However, all we know from the stimulus is that vitamin C lowers the risk of heart disease.

This argument concludes about what is healthier, but only tell us about one aspect of health. What C does is say that it introduces health risks. This weakens the conclusion about overall health by introducing a "con" to vitamin C, with respect to common infectious diseases.

Student Question:

Hi’ I’m messaging because I just don't see how the Scientist one and three agree that the cratering slowed down.

Tutor Answer:

This passage is about the LHB (Late Heavy Bombardment), a period that created "major cratering." For C to be supported, we want each of the three scientists to specify that the LHB had an end where there was less cratering.

Looking at the second paragraph, we see:

Scientists 1: "In this view, a large body broke apart and peppered the inner solar system with debris"

These scientists present it as a defined event that would end and we'd see a decrease (after the peppering concluded).

Scientists 2: "They claim that the Moon's evidence merely provides a view of the period concluding billions of years of a continuous, declining heavy bombardment throughout the inner solar system."

^ provides an end-date where there was less bombardment.

Scientists 3: "LHB was a sharply defined cataclysmic cratering period, but these scientists believe that because of its relatively brief duration"

^ "sharply defined" "brief duration" both support our conclusion that it went down afterwards.

I hope this helps to clarify! Because the LHB caused the cratering, once it ends we can expect less cratering. Since all 3 groups give us an "end" answer choice C is supported.

Student Question:

Wouldn't assuming that an employer chose the plan for them be bringing in outside information? That seems like a far reach. How could that be reasonably assumed? And if this is the case, it could be assumed that they could chose NOT to be covered and chose another plan if Acme wasn't the best?” Someone commented this and i had the same question, except it does not even have to go as far as choosing another plan if Acme is not the best; an employer could have chosen the plan and they just settled because it was good enough

Tutor Answer:

The argument states that these Economic prize winners have "clearly recognized that the Acme plan offers them a financially secure future."

For us to be able to say that they "clearly" have done so, we want it to be true that they deliberately selected the plan. If each of the winners had it chosen for them by their employers, then we wouldn't have that clear recognition.

In the final scenario you mention, where they settle because it was good enough, they have still not "clearly recognized" that the plan offers them that future, it could be that their options outside of the employer coverage were just worse.

I hope this helps to clarify! It boils down to the argument assuming that they "endorse" this plan, so we want it to not be what they are getting by default.

Student Question:

Is this question an example of descriptive premises but a prescriptive conclusion? Or is this a separate flaw?

Tutor Answer:

Not quite, a descriptive premise but prescriptive conclusion isn't necessarily flawed, that is when you get factual support for a conclusion that you "should" do something. The opposite is an issue, where you use prescriptive support (essentially, opinions) to support a factual conclusion.

Here the flaw is that Arjun shows a potential problem, and then his conclusion is "and therefore computer crimes also cause physical harm to people." However, we don't know that this potential harm has actually occurred.

The flawed reasoning is confusing potential harm with actual harm.

Student question:

Is it not important that that regular visitors continue to visit? If the logic is that the total tax revenue will increase if the total number of visitors increase, then it is critical for the city’s regular visitors to continue visiting, no?

Tutor Answer:

We can assume the truth of premises on the LSAT. When we are told that "And if several large conventions are held in the city, the total number of visitors will of course increase." We know that this increase will actually occur. It is not important that be the exact same visitors, as D implies, because we know for certain that we get that overall increase regardless.

Student Question:

For the life of me I cant understand why AC C is correct.

Tutor Answer:

For C, notice how in the stimulus the speaker argues that "If the maintenance had been done on a different day, I would have gotten to the meeting on time."

This calls into comparison the parking situation on those different days. C says that "What are the parking patterns in the building's vicinity on days when the parking area in front of the building is open?"

^ if we know this, we can then evaluate whether or not he would have been on time on those different days.

Student Question:

Both answer choices say “will lose money”, so how come one is correct and one is not

Tutor Answer:

While you are correct that both of the answers make that point, there are material differences between the two.

First consider the stimulus:

The move into food services may siphon off funds needed by these other operations. Also, the food service industry is volatile, with a higher inherent risk than with, for instance, pharmaceuticals, another area into which the company has considered expanding.

• The bolded language above indicates that this is risky venture, but not that they will 100% for certain lose money.

Answer Choice E: The company has a greater chance of losing money in food services than in pharmaceuticals.

Answer Choice C: The company will lose money as it expands into the food service industry.

^ A greater chance of losing than a less risky alternative is the ideal strength of language here. What C goes too far with is "the company will lose money" which communicates unsupported certainty.

Student Question:

I still don’t understand why B is wrong. Stimulus says “I am careful to avoid...” so the flaw here is that he assumes that because he’s careful to avoid that that results in water not flowing into the neighbor’s farm.

Tutor Answer:

Not quite, because B says I am careful to avoid spraying on my neighbor's land.

That doesn't match with the neighbor's claim, which was that his pesticides are spreading to her farm in runoff water. He could spray on his own land, and runoff water could carry it to his neighbor's land. For that reason, he doesn't address the neighbor's claim.

Student Question:

I didn’t pick d because it says coffeehouses OR restaurants. I thought it had to include both

Tutor Answer:

There is a concept in grammar called the inclusive or vs. the exclusive or. On the LSAT, an or is always inclusive. That means it does include both.

For it to be exclusive, we would need language to explicitly tell us that, like "only one or the other," but the default is always the inclusive. I hope this is helpful!

Here's a post that J.Y. wrote on the subject if you want to dive into this deeper, this will definitely come up on future questions as well:

https://7sage.com/blog/why-is-or-so-confusing

Student Question:

Hello, I don’t understand how c is wrong. I thought “Most well-designed public places feature artwork” translated to well-designed -m→artwork. Public place = coffeehouse and restaurants.

Tutor Answer:

I think your confusion here relates to how broad the term public places is. It includes coffeehouses and restaurants, but is also much broader (libraries, city council, a park, etc.). Although we know over 50% of well-designed public places have art, maybe coffeehouses are not included in that majority group.

Student Question:

I thought the second sentence start to talk about that commentary has neglected certain other achievements?

Tutor Answer:

The first sentence mentions his SCOTUS service and notes that most of what is written "has just focused on.." <-- this suggests the neglect.

The second sentence then flushes out that claim, but part of the first sentence's purpose is to introduce the idea of something being neglected to the reader.

Student Question:

I am confused about the reasoning because I thought I needed to meet both premises of being tasty and healthful. Why was it okay to “drop” the healthful aspect?

Tutor Answer:

Dried parsley should never be used in cooking, for it is far less tasty and healthful than fresh parsley is.

B says "Only the tastiest ingredients should ever be used in cooking."

The conclusion is: Dried parsley should never be used in cooking. The stem asks us to justify the argument, which is another way of saying validates our conclusion. For this reason, it isn't critical for the correct answer to connect to every premise; if only the tastiest ingrediants should be used, and dried parsley isn't the tastiest, then our conclusion is justified.

Student Question:

How is answer A relevant to the conclusion of question PT125.S2.Q24?

Tutor Answer:

Answer A is relevant to the conclusion— that methane production from cows could be kept in check if cows were given better-quality diets— because well-fed cows produce more meat and milk than cows on bad diets, then you don't require as many cows to meet the growing demand.

^ thus, methane production could be kept in check if cows were given a high-quality diet.

Student Question:

How do we know that PT151.S4.Q12 is a “strengthen” question?

Tutor Answer:

I suspect your confusion here is between strengthen and most strongly supported.

Strengthen is when we are trying to get additional support for the stimulus, MSS is when we are asked which answer choice is most strongly supported by the stimulus. The key difference is the direction of the support.

Which one of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument?

^ This stem indicates giving support to the argument, so it is a strengthen.

Student Question:

Can I get some more elaboration on why answer D is incorrect

Tutor Answer:

D says that "museum visitors who take snapshots of works of art rarely look at the pictures afterward."

Negated, this is Museum visitors do not rarely (either more than rarely, or never) look at snapshots they took.

This is not a necessary assumption because it only describes what people do with pictures, which isn't relevant to their willingness to engage with art in the moment.

Student Question:

I thought D was essentially a conditional statement; i.e., if a crop was once one of the largest production crops in Kalotopia, then, if grown there again, it will benefit the country’s economy. So I thought it couldn’t be D because you’re generalizing for all crops that were once of the largest production crops in Kaloptopia. We only know about sunflowers. I know the wording is construed as not being a conditional statement, but I feel like it really sounds like it.

Tutor Answer:

D speaks to about "a crop that was once a large production crop in Kalotopia." This is singular, and we know that sunflower is one of those crops.

It isn't generalizing to all crops because it has the singular "a crop" which can be applied to a specified singular crop.

Student Question:

Why is the implicit assumption from “high educational levels” to “informed lifestyle choices” okay? Is it because it’s reasonable to assume an education is an informed lifestyle choice? (or if we abstract it, a variable is a reasonable subset of another (superset) variable?)

Tutor Answer:

As it is used here, informed lifestyle sources is synonymous with "educated lifestyle sources." The flaw here is that the argument overlooks two possibilities.

1. Maybe luck casually contributes to who gets education and good health

2. Maybe some third thing causally contributes to both.

Student Question:

Could I get further elabortation on why answer A to question PT125.S2.Q18 is incorrect?

Tutor Answer:

Answer choice A is incorrect because reasonableness is not discussed at all in the stimulus. That places it out of scope! Whether it is best to do something is not the same as whether it is reasonable to do it.

Student Question:

Please help me understand this better. The explanation says the dioxin goes around the fish? Then how does that weaken? How is that showing just because there is a shut down that the fish are not exposed?

Tutor Answer:

The dioxin travels through the water at a slow rate (it may be easier to think of a log drifting down a river, the chemical is the same way). The paper mills let out a steady stream of "logs" that then drift by. When it remains open, the fish near the mill are exposed to a constant stream of (different!) logs. However, when it is shut down, the logs pass the fish.

This means that dioxin can still be the cause, even though the fish recover quickly during shutdowns. Because the dioxin still decomposes slowly, it just is decomposing away from the fish!

Student Question

I would like to know why A is wrong, I read the discussion and it says because of the possibility of A going either way (Can/Cannot), but does it not establish an assumption and thus strengthen?

Tutor Answer:

A is wrong because although it suggests that the hepadnavirus caused the diverging, “can” is weak. All that means is that it is possible, that could be a 0.000001% chance.

For that reason this does not "most strengthen" the argument as the question stem asks. It being possible does have slight strengthening power, but the lack of clarity as to how likely it is weighs against it.

Student Question:

I am having trouble distinguishing A and D and the question type in general. If this is a sufficient assumption question, then we have to do something that would guarantee the rec. in the stimulus which is that we should preserve the maximum species if it is in our interest. AC A states that it is in our interest so I feel like that would strengthen that we should preserve them, which is the conclusion

Tutor Answer:

This is a PSAr question (full-name pseudo-sufficient assumption find the rule).

You are looking for a rule that will most help to justify the stimulus' reasoning. A isn't a good answer choices for our purposes, because the stimulus tells us what to do if it's in our interest. A saying it is within our interest doesn't explain why we should do it if its in our interest.

A could be a good answer if this were a NA question, and it went through the stimulus and concluded "therefore we should preserve the maximum species" because the assumption would be that it is in our interest. It doesn't work as an answer to give us a rule that justifies the stimulus.

D however does. The argument says that we should protect the species we're indifferent towards because of the possibility that their loss impacts useful species. D justifies that principle because it shows that we should not allow a change if there is possibility of harm.

A only tells us what we should do if the principle is justified, it doesn't do the justifying.