A is tricky because the flaw is not immediately clear. It took a second to flesh it out but here's a decent analogy:

what if someone says hey we figured out the best cookies in the city and theirs a direct connection between quality and freshness. You'd be like thats great so how did you measure the quality of a cooke?

If the company said: "oh we rated quality on how fresh the cookie was." you'd be offly mad wouldnt you.

thats why Answer A is weakening. The company wasn't actually measuring quality and then finding causation through freshness (efficiency through time management) they could have just been measuring freshness (time management) and equated it as quality (efficiency)

B) this is a pretty strong weakener. It says the time management classes are useless because time management cant be taught just bribed for.

C) Is in the same vein as B. Basically saying time management is not a skill that can be taught well or that time management isnt actually useful to efficiency.

D) Is the correct answer. I did not pick it and instead picked E in my PT. I was down on time and didn't really like E, a lot of this is because In my stupor I thought the stimulus stated that the time management seminars would be mandated. If the class is mandated and let's say most of the managers were already efficient, then the class is waste. But the classes are not mandated, they are "made available." So it is optional, meaning efficient managers dont have to take it (would be weakening) and the slackers do have to take it.

E) I settled on E because I didnt' really like any of the answers and it was the last question. This answer is incorrect because it weakens the argument by saying time management is not necessary for time management skills. In my defense we are constantly taught that just because something isnt necessary doesn't mean its not sufficient to. (Time management could still be useful for creating efficiency jsut not required) but when we compare this to D which is entirely irrelevant to the the conclusion the answer is clear.

There is a lot of gobbledygook here in this question but if you take a second and know your flaws this is a pretty straightforward question.

So the first sentence gives you decreasing percentage. When you here any form of decreasing/ increasing or decreasing / increasing percentages you need to immediately be on the look out.

So were given a decrease in percentage of treatment A, and then told a increase in treatment in B. From that we conclude that there has been less spending than ten years ago.

If you dont spot the flaw reading the stimulus, or this simplified, stimulus you're going completely blind into the ACs and this question will be a total time sink as you try to piece how each AC fits the question and the test makers make it especially difficult by making all of the questions super obtuse.

The flaw is: a decrease in a percentage does not equate to a decrease over all.

If the the share of treatment went down by 1% but spending went up by 80 bajillion dollars then were actually spending more on all treatments.

To draw the conclusion we have to assume that spending on treatment from ten years ago to now has stayed the same or decreased. E is the only answer that does that.

A is a good trap answer because it is the classic flaw of two factors, (AC use, grid failure) the author drawing concluding a causal relationship (AC causes power failures) and A says will theres another third factor in play that reduces the importance for this causal factor.

The issue here is that the stimulus doesn't assume this connection. We are told that it is AC use that is overloading the electrical grid. No if ands or buts. The residents have been asked to cut back voluntarily on air conditioner use in their homes." that is a clear indicator to B.

Questions like this are always time intensive so lets figure out how we can eliminate some answer choices quickly:

1) Our stimulus is all chained conditional statements

2) there are three variables all introduced prior to the conclusion.

3) the first conditional is a two negative variables (this isn't a must, but its good to look at on the first run through)

A) this has only two variables in the premises and introduces a third variable in the conclusion. Let's not look at it any longer

B) This fits all three. It does commit the legal inverse of the stimulus

C) This does have two negative variables and does have conditionals, but only has two variables, so we can discount this.

D) this has three variables but includes most in its conditional statement so it cant be considered

E) This a clunky AC. It may seem to fit all three but if we take a second we can see that the conclusion is a restatement of the variables of the initial sentence. That isnt right/

*could *

B is a classic NA assumption. Mechanic is described, so mechanic enables conclusion. AC is mechanic actually works. The issue is that the stimulus uses a hypothetical / future tense and the AC B begins with "using current technology" for B to be correct it would have to say "technology will ever be capable of..." or something like that.

D is a little tricky because the end of the stimulus says installation, reducing bill, saving money. Your primed to thinking that yes, any reduction of a bill is inherently saving. So even if the installations are expensive, your saving money on your bill. But the stimulus does not say saving money on a bill but just says saving money. When the LSAT test makers say saving money or making money, always be looking to make sure both input and output are accounted for when considering profit and saving money

This question is very difficult. When doing this question, I felt like A and E were both doing a similar enough item and selected B as It could be a way to solve the paradox about averages. While B could be true, there is very little support for it especially relative to or A or E.

Distinguishing the difference between A and E are hard but I think taking it/ thinking about it like a principle question is important. We have the two claims:

This caused self esteem loss, self esteem loss as a child makes less confident adults. We need to address both of these claims. A seems like it does because well if we attacked the second part (loser kids become sad adults) then the first part is irrelevant. But we still have this claim sitting here, this is not a weakening question where we can just attack one part of the stimulus. We have to address all of the claims and only E does that.

This question is hard only because the stimulus being so clunky.

Imagine the stimulus. We ought to only pay attention to A when considering art. We shouldn't pay attention to B. Therefor we shouldnt do C.

This is so many SA questions. They are tricky because they rely on connections that we naturally make but if you take a step back you'll notice that these arguments are presuming things.

Here we have symbolizes thrown into the conclusion. Whered that come from. We have the premise saying we cant pay attention to extrinsic properties then that proves that we cant pay attention to symbolizing therefor Symbolizing -> extrinsic

B is one of those tricky answers that you overthink and think youre catching the subtleties of the test makers when youre just going crazy. I read way too in depth on a potential meaning of theoretical.

This stimulus is all about reproducing digital waves, we know that analog is at a disadvantage doing this. I also had the crack-head idea that disadvantage did not necessarily mean that therefor digital was at an advantage. But of course it is, disadvantage is a comparative term so it applies to the digital especially when were given that analog have an advantage to digital in the previous sentences.

A is a tricky wrong answer. I had selected B on my first read through than incorrectly selected A. Partially, cause I thought B was too easy for a question in the 20s (not something you should be doing) and that A was this tricky subtle answer.

I will say that A seemingly supported only if you think education method = all activities. Education methods are just some activities so we cant make a claim for either person on what they think about this larger group.

If youre wondering why this is a belief fact flaw and not two different premises look at the "since." Since infers that the prior statements/ logic supports the this sentence, we can infer that the claim about 72% of people believing is supporting the fact of %50 market share. Its such a stupid argument, that it also seems like the stim has two separate but complimentary premises, but the since indicates how one claim supports the other.

B seems tempting but it isn't even strong enough to be a Necessary Assumption. If you selected B maybe you thought it said: Milk does not contain any substance that will increase blood pressure enough to offset the reduction created by calcium." it does not say that. It could still very well have ingredients that increase blood pressure but still create a lower blood pressure over all.

Sufficient Assumptions have to guarantee the conclusion. A does that by promising the mechanics outlined in the stimulus will work. The language is clunky and silly, but never let that scare you away from a correct answer.

If your working quickly A seems like an easy correct answer. A lot of NA questions rely on closing the loop between belief and fact flaws. The issue here is that were given a solid conditional that does not rely on any belief. When society changes quickly, they value elders. its not "When younger people think society is changing slowly, they value older people's thoughts more"

The correct answer is C, because the stimulus operates on the assumption that value advice = deference. This is an obvious assumption in real life so its may not be readily apparent just reading the stimulus. B and C all play around with this idea.

If you have two answer choices giving similar but importantly different versions of an idea its worth reassessing if you have quickly discounted this idea/ selected another answer. This may not mean this idea is correct, but the test makers are purposefully obfuscating something so make sure your not missing what their doing.

B is wrong because it plays on this idea of practicality when weve been operating with ideas of belief. Depends is also a very strong word. If you didnt catch the belief and practicality differences look at what C (the correct answer) says instead of depend: "varies." Varies implies just a degree of effect and determine, especially with out qualifiers, implies like a concrete 1:1 for effect.

This question is pretty subtle. Reading through the final paragraph one should take note of the use of "unless." its a very strong language for RC and seems like something the testers one us to make note of.

Having this idea and getting to Q26 your probably short on time, its a hard passage you get to answer B) and see the "best hope" very strong language matches unless the rest of answer doesnt seem to say anything too crazy so you select B and give the answers a quick one over to make sure they dont say anything too obvious and move on. (this is what I did.)

The issue is that the rest of B is straight wrong. Provincial courts are in fact allowed to make claims about ownership. Thats what the whole case is about.

I think we arrive to E from process of elimination. None of it super strongly supported but none if it is factually wrong like the other answers.

I think this question is pretty tricky entirely due to Answer C. Were trained to look for a lot of argument/ reasoning similarities. C uses a very similar structure compared to the stim. Agent has the right to take action due to a party putting putting other parties at risk with their delinquency.

This question is a good reminder that if a stimulus says "assert the principle" and then follows that with a clause that contains the determining factors for principle use, stick with that term.

This is a really jumbled stimulus and I think that accounts for much of the questions difficulty. If we slap on the conclusion at the end of the stimulus we can track the logic being used here:

1986 best selling hard covers 7% of markets

1996 best selling hard covers 14% of the markets

Megastores can offer bigger discounts than smaller stores and can offer their biggest discounts on hardcovers, this discourages people from buying other non-best selling hardcovers.

Therefor the rise of Megabook stores are responsible for the decreased sales of non-best selling hardcovers.

The necessary assumption, or classic flaw, is that the reduction in market share of non-literary hard cover books actually equates to a decrease in sales but this is a weakening question so were looking for something that gives another reason, besides Megastores that account for the decrease in market share.

1A this is kind of a nothing statement. It kind of strengthens the argument because it says people are more likely to buy best seller books. Ok, so now people are doubly likely to buy best seller hardcovers, because theyre cheaper and they are best sellers. if you selected this, maybe because you thought the answer said: "bookstore customers are more likely to buy best seller books than they were ten years ago" thinking this provides an alternate explanation to the megastore story. If the stimulus said "for the past three decades, bookstore customers have been more and more likely to buy best sellers" this still doesnt counter the sale idea, best sellers could be selling even more now because of megastores.

B) This has the same issues as A.

C) Here we go. Its saying that well the supply new of non-best selling hardcover books actually went down they shifted to paper back so the whole hardcover centered argument gets weakened.

D) Doesn't do anything at all. If it said there were more best sellers books we could talk about it.

E) If you selected this maybe you thought it said the opposite. If mega bookstores primarily held or sold non-best selling books this could be weakening. But the fact that mega book stores display relatively more best-sellers than independent bookstores supports the idea that the hardcover sales effect the market share.

Conclusion: when responding to polls, whether or not they are aware of it, people often portray themselves as they wish to be perceived, rather than as they actually are.

Prephase: Some people responding to the poll wanted to perceived not watching the news.

How we got this prephase: People claimed to be tired of this celebrity news shows. But at the same time more people were watching the news. Sometime there can be NA in the premise but this seems pretty good so far. So when we get to the conclusion we should really be on the look out. The conclusion is one of those things that are true in real life and that many people think/ talk about.

The LSAT does this to trick you into quickly accepting the conclusion rather than asking how we got here. Because, there really is a big jump from the evidence to the conclusion. We have this one poll going to all polls and were also assuming motive. For example, airports could have switched to exclusively streaming these news shows and in fact there could be no individual consumer increase in the show viewing number. In this hypothetical airport world, the whole conclusion falls apart. The jump from that people were purposefully misrepresenting themselves in the initial poll than the ratings increase has some obscure increase seems more likely so well be on the look out for that.

A) "everyone" is way too strong you should discount the answer quickly. But if we want to delve in why this answer is wrong, we are given two most statements already. We already know there is overlap between two groups. This premise doesnt need to be strengthened.

B) "Almost everyone" Strong language but not immediately discounting. This is more of a strengthening answer as opposed to a nescassry assumption. This answers attractiveness comes from the word "often" in the conclusion. We hear often and yes it raises the bar above a "can" but often ≠ most. If the conclusion was "when responding to polls, whether or not they are aware of it, most people..." then I think this answer would definitely be a necessary assumption but right now its just strengthening.

C) This has both the ideas and the wording/ wording strength "at least some of the people" what were looking for so it may seem attractive but its wrong. Its hard to keep track of what were looking for and parsing this difficult answer choice so take a second on the test before selecting and moving on.

This answer has one issues:

one: the stimulus says wether or not they aware of it, which is actually a very strong phrase that removes almost all intention based necessary assumptions.

D) "None" very strong language. We can scrap it.

E) Ok, this is are exact prephase. Some people wished to be perceived as unwilling to watch television. If some people are unwilling to be perceived when answering the poll then the conclusion becomes viable.

This is one of those really mean questions that eat your time at the end of a section when you may already be struggling/ behind on time. I also think when your dealing with a weakening except question and the conclusion is negative you can get lost in negatives and confused at what you're really trying to prove. keep in mind your evidence and your conclusion.

Evidence: the S-34 and s-32 ratios are the same as pre-life earth.

Conclusion: Therefore it is unlikely that earth occurred on Mars

A: Not really a strong weakener but it is a weakener. The evolution of life could have a different effect on the s-34 s-32 isotope ratio than the one on earth. This doesnt fully discount the issue of Mars having the same exact ratio as pre-life earth. But this is not a resolve paradox question, just a weakening question and it certainly raises a doubt.

B) This is a stronger version of A. Climate has effect on how life effects the isotope ratio. So if life occurred, of course, on mars which has a vaslt different climate earth, it would have different effects on the ratio.

C) This is strengthening the argument. Basically saying the sample is representative.

D) basically saying the evidence is unrepresentative so very weakening.

E) Also saying the evidence is unrepresentative thats hinting that life could have evolved or is affecting the isotopes.

lack of evidence ≠ evidence of lacking, bro

I had selected A because I was looking for the disconnect between the bad score as proof that the scores had decreased. The obvious issue is that there is evidence, its just misinterpreted. C just clearly states that flaw.

E is the trap answer because the we are given suggested in the first sentence and we should be primed to look out for the belief to certainty flaw but the suggestion is just kind of side note. The flaw is part to whole.

I kind of got mixed-up and tricked myself into not selecting B. C is tempting but its just a weaker version of C. E is a little tricky because it seems tempting if your reading quickly and could provide a contrapositive of we want but it just an illegal reversal.

Conclusion; /Deprived -> /Intelligent

E: Deprived-> /Intelligent

This question is pretty tricky. I did not find JY's explanation video super helpful either. My first take through I didn't like any of the answers on my first run through I took E for reasons below but the correct answer is B.

The easiest way to get to the right answer is simply by looking at our two premises.

1) If a recording sells well the band's music may be too trendy to be authentically underground.

2) But weak sales may be due to the group being incompetent.

the Correct answer choice has to discuss a band being too trendy therefor not an authentically underground or their straight up incompetent. The conclusion is not a conditional statement. There are may statements, we can not make any contrapositives so we have our answer choice has to talk about these items in these terms. There are no negations. We cant talk about competence or not being trendy and therefor being authentically underground.

There is only one answer choice that deals with both the premises in the right conditions, so you should focus on that.

The answer choices differing about being successful or un-sucessfull is a little bit of red herring and I think JY focusing on that in the explanation may confuse more people because the argument depends on two necessary assumptions that are both reasonable inferences:

1) that being incompetent makes you unsuccessful as an authentic underground band

2) that having music too trendy to be authentically underground is grounds for being an unsuccessful underground band

Im not so meta into the minds of the test makers but Im confident that these reasonable assumptions are the reason we don't have an answer choice that says:

An underground rock group is successful as an underground group if it is not incompetent or if any of its music is not too trendy to be authentically underground.

Like Answer choice B, this covers both premises. It would be wrong because of the two above reasonable inferences. ITs not stated in the conclusion but yes were talking about reasons for bands sucking not being great.

If the hypothetical answer choice said: "An underground rock group can be successful as an underground group if it is not incompetent or if any of its music is not too trendy to be authentically underground." We would have more of a toss up between AC B and this imaginary answer but the test makers are not that mean so we avoid both potential answers and have only one answer that successfully describes both premises.

This question is a good example of why you have to run return to the conclusion "An unstable climate was probably a major cause of the fall of the Roman empire" If your not paying attention you may get to the end of the stim and think you're solely trying to prove food production hurt the roman empire. But were trying to prove that the climate hurt food stability and then hurt the roman empire.

A) this reverses the cause and effect. This answer says that the roman empire fall hurt food production and actually weakens the argument because it gives another reason for the fall of food production that isnt the climate. Remember the argument isnt saying the climate hurt the roman empire and this hurt food production. Its the climate hurt food production which hurt the roman empire.

B) This is a weakener.

C) This is a weakener. It gives another reason for why food production goes down besides the climate.

D) I don't really like this answer but it certainly doesn't weaken. i feel like it attacks a potential weakness (that the Roman empire thrived when the climate was bad,) and it doesnt really do this that well, rather than explicitly strengthening but we work with what we get.

E) Careful you dont read this as BC/ BCE because it would then prove that food production went down. But its AD so the years do be going up.

A and D are the tricky/ trap answers.

A) in his video explanation JY says the issue is that the AC "should be directly proportional to the number of voters in that group." and not "should be directly proportional to the number of votes in that group." Im not particularly convinced by this. I think the bigger issue is there's this whole sudden and new concept of direct proportionality. This an idea we bring in from the real world, but this is the LSAT world. The author never says anything about direct proportionality, just that attention and little attention. We don't even need a lot of attention. Just some attention

D) I think this is really tricky. "t is not fair for lawmakers to favor the interests of people who have the vote over the interests of people who do not have the vote." Families with underage children have votes, the issue is they dont have enough votes/ a # of votes that properly represent them. If the stim said "Children make up much of the population" then we could think about D.

E) Ok yes this makes sense, were saying parents can vote for their children -> fair representation. This assumption is that parents voting for their children is fair.

This question is a good case study about how moving fast and over-confidence can hurt you. When you first read the question you are very primed for answer A. We have materials, these materials and their price are effected by clothing and then that clothing seems to be affected by demands in fashion, put it togethers fashion is the driving factor in the price of clothes.

We look down at the answer choices, and oh yeah, thats exactly what A says, perfect. But this is all wrong, and it may be a little tricky because the language used. In a MSS, A would be more correct but for a principle questions its a huge jump.

First off, yes we talk about material and clothing and we have prices dropping, so its a factor, but the most important factor: we cant say that.

Leather could go from 50 dollars to 48 dollars and nylon or another less labor intensive material could go from 10 dollars to 12 dollars. If we were given those numbers would we say fashion is the most important factor for determining price. This answer choice would be more attractive if the stimulus said something like Leather clothing has dropped and become less expensive than less labor intensive material.

But we still have one more massive hurdle: answer choice A jumpsfrom the stimulus discussion of material used in clothing to material used in goods.

With leather this may seem trivial because what else is leather used in other than clothing, right? But this is LSAT world, we cant make that assumption. What if the stimulus instead said:

"The production of gold for jewelry is labor intensive, which means that these materials have tended to be expensive. But as fashion has moved away from these materials, their prices have dropped, while prices of some materials that require less labor in their production and are more in fashion have risen.

If we had looked at this stimulus and then looked at Answer A we would almost instinctively know it was wrong. Sure, gold jewelry may be a little cheaper now that people are buying plastic, or silver, or bead, or those weird rope bracelets but would we say that fashion is the most determining factor? Obviously no, gold would be still rare... Gold is still used in other things.