#help during timed questions, would it be smart to write down our low-res summaries for each paragraph on scratch paper, so if we need a refresher, we can quickly glance back at it instead of revisiting the passage? Thank you.

The conclusion says: Therefore, whoever ....... must have worn gloves.

Remember, the correct answer will copy the structure of the stimulus, and it could be negated, meaning in this instance, we are looking for an answer choice that concludes with either must have (or must not), so let's see if this method works. All I did was highlight a couple of indicators in the stimulus, especially must in the conclusion, and all I will do is shallow dive into the answers and eliminate based on my criteria. I got this question right with 20 seconds to spare.

A) The campers at Big Lake Camp, all of whom became ill this afternoon, have eaten food only from the camp cafeteria. Therefore, the cause of the illness must not have been something they ate.

Love this, it's not giving me a comparative claim or a possibility like "might have" in the next AC, and the conclusion is very similar to the stimulus, remmember the structure is still technically the same on Parallel Question even if the same term used is negated, meaning if the stimulus in this case says MUST ... or MUST NOT.. those are basically the same regardless of the negation, however if what follows must is a comparative or a prediction and not an action or an event then it will most likely be false.

B) The second prototype did not perform as well in inclement weather as did the first prototype. Hence, the production of the second prototype might have deviated from the design followed for the first.

Might have, not what I'm looking for, and it is not the same as must/must not. I could accept negation as long as it's the same meaning, followed by one option or choice, and not a comparative.

C) Each of the swimmers at this meet more often loses than wins. Therefore, it is unlikely that any of them will win.

Unlikely that.. Skip!

D) All of Marjorie's cavities are on the left side of her mouth. Hence, she must chew more on the left side than on the right.

At first glance, this may seem like it is the winner, but the conclusion is a comparative statement, when the stimulus never compared between two different things. This is an attractive trap, but incorrect nonetheless.

E) All of these tomato plants are twice as big as they were last year. So if we grow peas, they will probably be twice as big as last year's peas.

This introduced a conditional in the conclusion as well as made a prediction. None were ever made in the stimulus; therefore, this is a quick skip.

@ckilk That's a great approach, thanks!

Alas, we’ve reached the final boss.

What helped me the most here was the piecemeal analysis method discussed in lesson 2. I just highlighted the conclusion descriptor and Premise descriptor of each answer choice and then compared each to the conclusion and premises of the stim, and that helped me do POE effectively.

@Catpop Youre on the right path. One thing id recommend from the previous lesson is that A also used a conclusion descriptor and a premise descriptor. The premise indicator "by" separates the two. What ive done is I compared the Conclusion descriptor to the stimulus and the Premise desc as well. Both matched and thats how I was confident it was the correct answer choice. I think the piecemeal analysis method is more reliable since a trap answer choice could also include the word conclusion in it and trip you up in the future. I hope this helps!

I did not diagram this question at all. All I did was prephrase the question and then look for the answer choice that adhered to my prephrase. I did take two minutes over time. Here’s my prephrase that I wrote in my notebook, and then I simply hunted for the answer choice that adhered to its logical structure. I hope this helps you see how, once you implement this skill, this question type becomes a breeze.

IF an officer has an exemplary record and not otherwise (eligible), and did something this year that exceeded reasonable expectations and saved a life, THEN that officer should receive the award.

We are then given Officer Franklin, who should receive it, and Officer Penn, who shouldn’t. If Officer Penn should get the award, that means he satisfied all the requirements in the prephrase, and Officer Penn did not.

A) Follows the prephrase and adheres to its conditions and structure regarding Franklin and what prerequisites he must meet to actually receive the award, and it doesn’t include any contradictory information about Penn, like, for example, saying he has an exemplary record, because that would defeat the purpose of the principle—he didn’t get it for a reason.

B) Both have exemplary records, meaning both are eligible, and both saved a life this year. Why the hell didn’t they both get it then? Should I trust the principle or whatever this question is talking about?

C) Lmfao, neither of them has an exemplary record, meaning Franklin is a fraud and should be investigated by the city since he’s not even eligible for the award. This goes against the prephrase and the principle within it.

D) Now you’re telling me he saved a life and Penn did not—that’s cool, but what about his record, which makes him eligible in the first place for the award? Nope.

E) This one, on the surface, is attractive, but unless you didn’t catch the “BOTH” at the beginning of it, then you should also skip it, especially considering that A doesn’t even cast any doubt on the application or its adherence to the principle by saying that they BOTH are eligible. A is more attractive and more solid.

Hi, I also struggled with this question a lot, and it sent me on a quest to do research and crack the code for this type of question. I also practiced a fair number of 4-star and 5-star questions, and this method seems to work most of the time.

If you’re struggling with this type of question and you’re learning it for the first time, then get into the habit of doing it untimed and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, writing your prephrase. Your prephrase should be in the IF…THEN format, where the IF contains the premises and the THEN contains the author’s conclusion.

I’ll include the exact prephrase I wrote in my notes for this question that helped me get it right without second-guessing any other choices—I hope it helps you:

IF you refuse to accept coupons from a competitor when doing so would cost you nothing and satisfy your potential customers, THEN your motive in doing so is simply to hurt your competitor.

Now, simply look for the answer choice that follows the arrow from P → C and adheres to the same logic, without adding anything foreign or using weird quantifiers. In this instance, A does all of that perfectly. If you compare A to the prephrase, it is almost identical.

With most other questions, the correct answer will usually be very similar and will follow the same logical structure as your prephrase. That’s why getting into the habit of doing this will eventually make it more of an automatic mental process.

took me 10 minutes but I got it right. My only worry is on timed practice how will I answer this in 2:19 minutes if I will diagram the whole thing?

There was a floating premise in this stimulus—specifically the one about acetylsalicylic acid slowing the deterioration associated with Alzheimer’s. This premise is not connected to the author’s conclusion. In a strengthen question, the correct answer will often connect this “floating” premise to the conclusion, and that is exactly what answer choice B does. I hope this helps you see the correct answer differently.

@OwenTrela I totally understand where you're at. My primary goal after reading a strengthening stem is to ask: how can I find an answer choice that helps make the conclusion of the author more true? If any AC makes the conclusion or explanation of the author less true or doesn't remotely help it, I do not pick it and move on to the next. So in practice, here I looked at answer choice A: Some plants can develop resistance to air pollution, well thats not good for trying to prove that air pollution eradicates plant diseases. B) Talking about infection by the disease, but I am concerned with air pollution eradicating said diseases, so no. C) Weakning the argument by saying scientists actually dont know what effects air polution has on some plant species. D) This one is saying the two diseases came back after the city became less polluted, and that grants support to the explanation that air pollution is what caused both diseases to be eradicted thats my winner. E) Neither helps nor weakens my argument, it is just saying the two diseases were the only ones that dissapeard doesnt say how. That was the way i thought through the answer choices and ive always kept the conclusion/explanation of the author in the back of my mind while actively combing through the answer choices looking for one to make said conclusion more likely/true.

@LSAT1011 It is when you see two or more facts in a stimulus and assume something that isn’t stated. For example: “Conan is the best detective, yet his clearance rate is below average.” These two statements may seem confusing at first. How can Conan be the best detective if his clearance rate is low? This confusion comes from operating under a naive assumption—that if Conan is the best detective, his clearance rate must also be the highest. That assumption is what creates the apparent contradiction in your mind. The correct answer resolves this by breaking that assumption: “Conan gets the hardest cases.” Now it makes sense why Conan could have a below-average clearance rate. Hope that helps.

@FultonHoover Same