I got this correct during my timed test, but nearly chose (A) by mistake. Answer (D) wasn't as straight forward as I was expecting for a Question 1. That left me confused and only because I had extra time at the end was I able to return to the problem and choose the correct answer. This was a good reminder to not lower my guard during the first 10 questions and make sure I am really understanding the argument and its structure so that I can select the proper Main Point even when its not a true precise rephrasing of the conclusion.

I chose B when timed. "Predicts the success of an entity" AKA predicts the success of the team (our club will almost certainly be city champions this year) ... "on the basis of features that are not relevant to the quality of that entity." For this part of the sentence, I thought they were trying to distinguish between recruiting the best players and signing/playing said players. I figured, recruiting the best players alone is irrelevant to the quality of your team if you are never able to sign or play the best players in the competitions. So the "features" would be recruiting.

But this is all a stretch and (E) looked much better on BR.

Yeah, imagine averaging over 228 trampoline injuries per day. You'd have to not only be an idiot but also a masochist.

This is helpful. I made the same mistake.

Bad question IMO.

(D) being correct rests on the assumption that "cars are now better protected from salt's corrosive properties than they were even as recent as five years ago." What if this isn't due to the age of someone's car? What if some other technology (not directly built into a car) now makes salt corrosion a thing of the past? Maybe there is a spray that is easily affordable for all that has made salt corrosion a thing of the past?

Additionally, it is laughable to assume that road salting isn't "road maintenance." (B) makes assumptions also, of course. But it is certainly reasonable to assume the Sales Tax burden would be less if less road maintenance (salting) was undertaken.

Click the video link for the PSG explanations. Those questions are discussed there.

Blah. Misidentified the conclusion of S. Fixated on the first sentence, though this is more of a general principle that supports the last sentence (the real conclusion). Therefore, I tricked myself into going with AC (E) because I confidently eliminated the others. With the correct conclusion identified, (D) is the obvious AC.

This is a tricky question.

Most of the worlds are:

T>M>D

S>M>D

But some of the worlds are:

T>M>D

T>M>S

This is hard to represent with text and easier to draw like a LG. But T>M>S represents a world where an S will not be as old as a T. This makes (E) - MBT & correct.

(A) - MBF

(B), (C), and (D) - CBT

Difficult question. Timed, I incorrectly chose (A), but realized in BR that (D) was basically an equivalent "Could Be True" solution. I was able to eliminated (E) fairly easy. But I got trapped by (B) on BR. Economics isn't my favorite subject for LSAT stimuli. The video above does a good job of clarifying the issue and I now feel confident that (C) is the only "Must Be True" solution to fill the blank with.

Yeah, no idea how we'd assume based on the passage that manufacturers and trademark owners are the same people. If anything, there seems to be a distinction between the two groups throughout the passage. How often does the person who owns the actual trademark on an item also manufacture that item?

It is questions like these that make me realize it's okay to not get every problem correct. If you make the assumption required to get #11 correct you are probably missing a dozen other questions where that assumption costs you. I don't want to get in the habit of selecting descriptively inaccurate answer choices.

#9 is pretty tricky, in my opinion.

I chose (D) under timed conditions, but incorrectly switched to (C) in BR.

I honestly didn't feel like the author suggested any of these.

I wonder why we are to assume that the Cretaceous crisis was minor only with regard to marine biodiversity. Couldn't we just as easily assume that 100% of the marine animals perished during the Cretaceous crisis, but the marine animals only made up 1% of the total biodiversity on earth? This would make it minor compared to the Permian extinctions, but cause (D) to be incorrect.

I switched to (C) but with serious reservations. The first paragraph says that biodiversity is the lowest since the Mesozoic era. I didn't realize that the Cretaceous was a part of the Mesozoic and assumed (based on the dating in the passage) that the Cretaceous followed it. With that in mind, I figured that the current crisis was worse than any previous crisis or extinction event that came after the Mesozoic.

All and all, this question is not as well supported as most others (unless I am completely missing something #help).

At the time of writing, the Target Time is 1:37. If we are to assume this is correct, then we have to accept that people can read the question stem, the entire stimulus, diagram the stimulus, read each answer choice, and diagram each answer choice in less than 100 seconds. I call shenanigans. Either there is a faster way to parse out the conditional logic and arrive at the correct answer choice or the Target Time is incorrect. Even if you knew the correct answer prior and you knew how to diagram everything and this became simply an exercise in speed reading and writing, I doubt many could complete this problem in 1:37. So, as the poster above from years ago said, I would like to see the question worked out with something resembeling the target time. #help

This was my mistake on the first go-round. During blind review I couldn't deny the could/cause issue and knew (C) was actually correct.

I chose (C) initially, but incorrectly switched to (E) on blind review. Here was my incorrect rationale:

Premise:

Homelessness Problem Disappears --> Government Steps In and Provides the Homeless with Housing --> Increased Taxation

Conclusion:

Increase Taxation

Answer Choice (E):

"If a MEASURE is sufficient to solve a problem..."

The MEASURE being the government stepping in and providing the homeless with housing

"... any STEPS necessitated by the measure"

The STEP being the increasing taxation, which is a necessary condition for our MEASURE

"... should be adopted."

Unfortunately, the PROBLEM in answer choice (E) is the Homeless Problem Disappearing and we have no sufficient measures to end that problem only those that are necessary.

With time constraints, thankfully, (C) spoke to me. It was the over-reasoning that had me switch to (E) later.

This question is illuminating. I missed it, timed and on blind review. For some inexplicable reason I viewed the conclusion as a competition. Like, "any person who wants to be the top happiest person alive" as opposed to its actual meaning of something like "any person who wants to be the happiest version of themselves." (D) makes more sense when viewing that sentence correctly. (A) made a lot more sense when I was trying to find the answer choice that created a scenario where we were battling for being king of the happiness mountain.

I'm not buying that this question is Level 1 Difficulty. The wording of multiple answer choices, specifically (B) and (D) is too convoluted. Additionally, while (A) feels wrong, it is at least partially attractive based on the wording.

(D) is correct because the argument rejects the possibility that (underinflated/overinflated tires do not cause harm) is a true statement. It rejects the possibility of it being true because we can't prove it to be true based on the information in the stimulus.

This would be analogous to someone rejecting that the earth is spherical (and concluding it must be flat) just because I couldn't personally prove it's a sphere using mathematics or science. It doesn't mean the proof doesn't exist (or that the spherical hypothesis is false) just because I can't currently provide it.

Sheesh. I missed question #7 twice (normal and BR). Something about the way answer choice (D) is phrased is perplexing to me. I suppose it is grammatically correct, but something about it just reads wrong in my mind.

I was able to find the flaw easily but thought (B) & (D) were the same answer, so went with E. Missed that (D) switched from lap times to swim meets. I was weary of (A) & (C) because they were talking about auto related things like the passage. (B) or (D) seemed best, but I concluded if they were the same they couldn't both be right, so chose (E). Bummer.

While I did answer this correctly, it took me 3 minutes and it was mostly a guess. I got it correct on BR as well but also felt like I was guessing. JY's answer made sense to me. I'd really like to fundamentally grasp these most difficult passages, specifically the philosophical ones.

I'm going to try and reverse engineer this problem...

---

If we assume (B) is correct, which it is, the following MUST BE TRUE:

Plant Manager: New process costs more (is more expensive) than the current process.

Why?

Plant Manager: Copper must be reheated after it is cooled.

Implication: Reheating copper is more costly than moving molten copper.

---

Supervisor: New process does not cost more (is not more expensive) than the current process.

Why?

Supervisor: Latest closed furnaces are extremely fuel-efficient.

Implication: The extreme fuel efficiency of the latest closed furnaces means the new process costs either the same or less.

---

Can the supervisor agree with the Plant Manager's conclusion AND the above be true?

Yes, the supervisor could still agree that the new process will cost much (different than cost more) and bring the company no profit.

---

Why is (E) wrong?

---

As shown above, the Plant Manager would agree that reheating copper is more costly than moving molten copper. This is implied to be the reason the new process would cost more than the current process.

So for (E) to be the correct answer, the Supervisor would have to disagree.

---

So, if we assume that the "one point" he disagrees with is that the cooling/reheating of copper does not cost more then his argument becomes:

Supervisor: Cooling and reheating copper will not cost more than moving it in molten form.

Why?

Supervisor: Latest closed furnaces are extremely fuel-efficient.

---

So does the Supervisor believe the above?

If yes, then (E) would be correct also.

If no, then (E) is incorrect.

If they have no opinion, then (E) is also incorrect.

---

If I am being 100% honest, I don't know how to falsify this. I don't know how to say without a doubt that the "one point" is definitely not the above.

If (E) were correct we'd have to accept the connection between extreme fuel-efficiency and equal or lesser cost. For me, this isn't all that far of a leap, so I will leave this with a #help and hope someone can break this down point by point to completely validate (B) and eliminate (E).

Missed this one. Chose (A), though I see why it's wrong now. I kind of felt like (D) implied that public funds should support (ALL) art. Which doesn't seem to be an assumption required for the conclusion to be true. (D) certainly strengthens the argument and, as @achie917 suggested, feels kind of like a sufficient assumption. I'd of felt better with (D) if the authors added some qualifier like SOME art in the answer.

As @michael.citrin alluded to, frequently ignoring warnings doesn't make the plane less safe in this comparison. All it does is place the plane on par with a similar plane without the system. The pilot could ignore the warning every single time minus one and this would still have a small net positive effect on safety. Because of this, I can't see how this assumption is necessary. Though answer choice (C) is the best so I selected it anyway.

I feel like on the easier problems the standards for what is a "necessary assumption" in the answer choices isn't as strict as on the harder questions where your logic has to be prestine.

Can anyone explain how negating the answer completely wrecks our argument? #help

I feel like (D) is a sufficient assumption answer. A better necessary assumption answer would start as, "No parasite identified up to this point..." I feel like this answer choice makes an assumption that every parasite of the sweet-potato whitefly has been discovered and found to be not a parasite of the silverleaf whitefly. This of course isn't discussed in the stimulus. Just because you confine your search to sweet-potato whitefly parasites doesn't necessarily mean that you discovered them all. The wasted effort mentioned in the conclusion can still hold even if (D) is not true.

I was able to get this correct regardless using POE. Can anyone refute my thought process though? #help

I feel like a better example is something like this:

You're the richest man alive.

NA: You have $1

NA: You have $100

NA: You have $1000

NA & SA: You have more money than any other living man.

SA: You have a trillion dollars.

The argument JY was giving related to a subjective matter - being the best basketball player alive. Being the richest man alive means something very specific. It would seem to me both sufficient and necessary to have more money than anyone (any other living man) if you wanted to be considered the richest man alive (assuming we are speaking about being rich in wealth).

In my example, we can make something as simple as having $1 the necessary assumption because it is necessary to have (at minimum) $1 to even be in the running of "richest man alive." But some necessary assumptions can give more support to the argument than others. Saying you have $100 is necessary and even better. Saying you have $1000 is necessary and even better than that!

Though having a trillion dollars would be sufficient as this indicates you are the richest man alive, as no individual has (or has ever had) that amount of money before, you don't need a trillion, it's not necessary because $250 billion would get the job done.

Just my 2 cents.

I got this correct but I'm struggling to think of a configuration where the stimulus isn't true.

#help

When it's said that "a majority of voters supported conservative candidates" they are truly saying that greater than half of voters supported ONLY conservative candidates. If it didn't mean that the phrasing would need to be something closer to "a majority of voters mostly supported conservative candidates."

It is the same deal with "a majority of voters supported candidates who voted in favor of the antipollution act." This implies that greater than half of voters supported EVERY candidate who voted in favor of the antipollution act, otherwise it would say something like, "a majority of voters supported many candidates who voted in favor of the antipollution act."

I've attempted scenarios with multiple parties, scenarios with mixed pollution support amongst the conservative candidates, I've changed the number of voters, and changed the number of elections.

Can someone write out one scenario where the majority of voters only vote conservative, where the majority of voters only vote for candidates who voted in favor of the anti-pollution act, AND where the majority of voters DON'T support the conservative candidates who also happened to vote in favor of the anti-pollution act?

Thanks in advance!