Look to the conclusion: there is no necessary connection.

It can be hard with there or this's especially when it refers to abstract ideas that the stem repackages with different ideas

B) Captures the latter half of the argument but doesn't capture the conclusion.

C) We cant say no one likes nor the general idea of there being no causal connection between disliking characteristics to disliking elderly

D) The process of being eldery is not described as bad just that its ok to dislike.

E) factually inaccurate to the argument

E does absolutely nothing for the argument.

A) Strengthens the causal relationship

B) This proves the causal mechanism

C) Strengthens the causal relationship

D) Strengthens the causal relationship

E) Does nothing.

PC is a hanger. If you didnt have the last sentence both A and D would be right.

When parallel reasoning always look for contra positive logic if your struggling. They sneak those in there every once in a while

Principles want to be over arching to bvalidate an action. We have t two actions we have to validate:

Something being laudable

And something being not wrong.

We have to prove that doing something helpful is laudable

We also have to prove that if you havent misled someone it is not wrong to do said action.

A) this covers both bases

B) Kind of hard to decipher. So we have being helpful to someone is laudable (which is good) then whenever is not wrong to do so (which is the words were looking for but not in the descriptive sense we need) Doing nothing is not wrong.

Doing nothing is not a precursor or dependency of being laudable. The two ideas are separate.

C) Being laudable is probably not wrong to do so but this answers suffers from only validating one of the actions (thought with words from the second action that needs to be validated)

D) Again we are only validating one action. We have to separate ideas that need to validated.

E) Same issue

It seems like Sahira's implicit claim is more explicit right? To get to the answer you have to have a grasp of your flaws. Sahira's flaw (and implicit assumption) An artists best work could/ would not gain widespread popular acclaim.

If Sahira said usually or often or some qualifier on her statement but she doesnt so she commits this either or flaw that Rahima attacks.

EG > /LH (LH -> B)

LH -> /B ( B -> /LH)

We are given no way to bridge Bold to generous. These conditionals are not chained.

A) EG -> /B (WE can't get here)

B) /B -> EG (We can't get here)

C: /B -> EG ( we cant get here)

D) LH -> / EG LH -> /B (contra of the first)

E /LH -> B /LH -> EG ( We cant say anything about people not being level headed)

Why D: this sentence:

Modern critics of Victorian philanthropy often use the words "amateurish" or "inadequate" to describe Victorian philanthropy, as though Victorian charity can only be understood as an antecedent to the era of state-sponsored, professionally administered charity.

So either modern refers to both criticisms, or if it only refers to the second criticism its ok because the first criticism is all about how the state needed to be covered so both bases are covered.

A) Its not indicating anything

B) This is a very tempting wrong answer but it is factually inaccurate. The earlier "claim" mentions atmospheric conditions that can cause oxygen to grow not other atmospheric gasses that interfere with photosynethesis.

In a pinch for time you look for similar words before or after and then select that answer, the lsat makers were taking advantage of that with this AC. Always break down exactly what the passage is saying and what the AC is saying.

C) Factually wrong

D) You have to link that the Co2 not entering is the "other atmospheric gasses" They are really sneaky about this.

read the stem. Not organization of the passage like you may quickly assume but the organization of specific paragraphs.

A little tricky: you have to connect that "Francesca de Romana's licensure to practice general medicine, the earliest known officially recorded occurrence of this sort" proves that there is no reliable evidence that any of them practiced general medicine.

Dont get stuck in a doom loop thinking all of the answers are incorrect. Take a moment. Come back to the question and word search relevant words (in this case license) then go back to the ACs

I think A is an understandable concern, maybe even an inference. But the stem is just describe an attitude which makes D obviously correct.

The explanation for E being wrong is wrong. The third paragraph primary function is not to describe sources but advance an argument. Primary function is not about what it does, it can do a lot of things, but what it exists to do.

Read the stem slowly. I just thought it said art historian mentioned in the first paragraph.

SA questions are a bridge. They are all powerful.

We have premises about poets pursuing personal expression and therefor poets using words ambiguously. From that we can conclude that no poet reader's enjoyment depends on understanding a precise meaning of words.

Basically we have to find a bridge that says any reader poetry (or maybe words used ambigously or someone reading personal expression) does not care about attaining a precise understanding.

A) This is actually very close. But we need to understand that the readers enjoyment doesnt depend on precise meaning not just treader trying to attain precise meaning. A could lead to a bunch of people reading poetry not looking for a precise meaning but hating it.

B) We dont care if theyre concerned.

C) Perfect. Any and all writers who use words ambiguously has any reader whose enjoyment depends on precise understanding.

D) Like a could be true question but we want to know about readers not about poets

D) not relevant at all

For and such are premise indicticator. If something is given it cant be a conclusion. We have to argue for a conclusion.

C is a poop answer but all the other answers are much poopier.

We just have to have someone ignoring a routine thing (monthly sales meeting) for a big project (urgent call from major) {I dont this is really a big project but whatever}

Infected -> rotten

Inspected -> /Infected

(Infected -> /Inspected)

----

Inspected -> safe to eat

Its a classic

A->B

--

A-> C

We need B ->C

/C -> /B

A is Inspected

B is is Uninfected

C is Safe to Eat

So anything that is uninfected is safe to eat.

Or

Anything that is not safe to eat is infected

D is a little mean. Its an illegal reverse. We naturally read sufficient -> nesc right to left but remember any is a sufficient modifier so d is really /B -> /C when we need B -> C.

The first modifier is really tricky with rotten and infected but just look to conclusion we have inspected as sufficient the second sentence also has inspected as the sufficient. Thats all we need.

This is a little clunky but NA will consist of supporting a premise. We only have one premise: Human beings can exhibit complex, goal-oriented behavior without conscious awareness of what they are doing.

Our conclusion is: merely establishing that nonhuman animals are intelligent will not establish that they have consciousness.

How does the premise and conclusion connect. We have consciousness so we have to connect this idea of intelligence. Complex goal oriented behavior -> intelligence

took more time than It shoudlve for me. Lots of jargon and E was not something I was expecting but the conclusion is a general statement. With ever type things be wary of other instances of why things not mentioned in the argument also dont meet the threshold.

the topic is related enough where it cant be an analogy. The argument is so nonsense its hard to parse, but we can see that the evidence doesnt actually support any point. The conclusions dont support each other, their just restarting each other.

When attacking or weakening a study. Anything that shows or proves a misreporting of data is very powerful…

Kind of tricky, I really wanted B to work but were taking future tense so its not necessary by any means. D is the correct answer because the whole earning portion is the other pillar of the argument

Remember to restructure ACs

and just because something sounds similar doesn't make it the same variable.

Conclusions can be long