Correct! You want to only attack assumptions (the things that the argument takes for granted) and never ever attack explicitly stated premises.

So for instance, if I say "The weather will be nice because the sky is blue" I could just outright attack a premise ("no, the sky isn't blue") but that just isn't something the LSAT will ever have you do. Instead, right answers will focus on what I took for granted/assumed about blue skies (no rain, comfortable temperatures, etc.)

So with negation, remember to just add "not" - so in this case, we're saying "It's not the case that John worked on neither Saturday nor Sunday" - that means he could have worked on Saturday or Sunday, or he could have worked on both.

So your answer isn't quite right - it's not that he NECESSARILY worked on both. He could have worked on just one but not the other!

For games that have repeating pieces! So for most grouping games, once a piece is placed it is "exhausted" or "spent" and can't be reused; for those, you use a normal grouping set-up. But for some games, those pieces can be used again and again - this is where a chart is helpful.

Imagine 2 people going out to buy food. If I buy a sandwich and you do too, the "S" piece isn't exhausted - both of us presumably can buy it, so we'd have 2 S's. This is where the "repetition" or chart come in.

Yes, it needs to parallel the method of reasoning. There are really two distinct ways you can go about solving parallel flaw. First is identifying the flaw and looking for an answer choice that has a similar flaw. Second is looking for the argument structure and emulating it, ala parallel method. IMO this is why parallel flaw is a bit easier than parallel method - you can use both methods and feel as though you get two "bites at the apple."

So water and sewer systems are what's needed in order to build apartments - that means that those systems are necessary for apartments. How is that mapped? It would be A --> WS, meaning that if you have apartments, you'd better have what's required (water and sewer). That puts apartments in the sufficiency slot.

Yes, it usually means some, but you're right that where it gets tricky is "1." Usually, some can mean 1 or more. However, "several" usually really means 2 or more. I wouldn't say "I have several classes today" if I had 1 class, but I could say "I have some class today" if I had 1 class.

You shouldn't rely just on searching for conclusion indicators, since sometimes they can be misleading! It's a useful clue but shouldn't be everything. Instead, you should also look at the structure - ask yourself "Does this sentence give or receive support?" If it gives support, it's not the ultimate conclusion.

Yes, correlation causation! It demonstrates that it's not the caffeine that's the issue, but rather something associated (correlated) with caffeine: namely, another consumption pattern. So it's showing an alternate cause.

So 2 issues. First, it's just not the primary flaw - the primary flaw is assuming that "the biggest tomb made" is similar to "the biggest one we know about," which is a classic LSAT error (conflating reality with what we know).

Second, we'd have to assume a ton to make this relevant. For starters, that Alexander's tomb is outside the region. But also that, in comparing some "other tombs" (whoever those may be) that that might include Alexander's. It's just so vague - for all we know, this is saying he flaw is that it didn't compare this new tomb to some random guy's. It's just so vague and requires us to assume a bunch to reach the conclusion that it's Alexander's.

You're right that it's possible they don't compete, but it's also highly possible that they do. Remember, we're just trying to contribute to a possible explanation - the relevant question is "Is it possible that having a large number of fire pits would make lamps less necessary?" The answer to that has to be yes - fire generates light, as do lamps.

Think of it this way: if I have no fire pits versus having lots of fire pits, which one seems more likely to provide light? The latter, of course, even if we accept there's a non-zero chance the fire pits aren't for light. It's still far likelier than the alternative.

So this usually won't be a flaw - "argument is incomplete/unjustified" is actually a pretty common wrong answer, because most of the time an argument being not super detailed isn't actually a reason to reject the argument (just a reason to add more texture to it).

If I had to come up with an equivalent, it would be like "Newspapers are great source of news. They're unbiased" - the part about bias is really, really shallow and just comes out of nowhere. But again, it's barely a flaw even in that case.

I'd always start by just reading it and trying to understand it intuitively - Lawgic isn't necessarily a default but rather a tool in the toolbox, a tool we turn to help us if we're confused. If you're intuitively getting it, no need to use Lawgic. But yes, if you're not really processing it at first, then Lawgic becomes a useful second approach.

One distinction I'd draw is between main point and main conclusion questions. Main conclusion questions are almost always just pulling an exact line from the stimulus (supported by the argument's structure), while main point is a bit more like reading comprehension, where you're picking a more big picture summary of what was stated.

So, that's why we have the more "contextual" answer that's more of a paraphrase.

But to answer you more directly: we can use context to find premises too! Just like here, where you looked for support to infer where the conclusion was, you can do the same with premises. Just flip it around - if you find the conclusion, think about the reasons WHY that conclusion is true. That "why" should lead you in the direction of the premises. Hope that helps!

The argument talks about the city funding an activity - why would the city need to fund it? To convince cheapskates to pay for it! But (D) says that the reason people don't neuter is not financial - they don't do it because of moral reasons. So money wouldn't do much to convince them to do this, since it's not a financial reason

Closely related but not necessarily the same. You're right that both "evidence" and "premise" can, in context, mean support. You supply a premise to support an argument, just as you supply evidence to support an argument. But evidence tends to be a bit more fact-based. So evidence is a type of premise/support, but it specifically tends to be more fact-based, like you said.

It does mention data, just by using a synonym! The bottom part of the argument talks about "no increases...have been detected" - data is something that might be seen via detection. And if nothing was detected, then there's no data to support the theory.

"An individual" and "may" means that basically, E is just stating something super obvious - one random individual possibly could not have a lot of fat, despite their country having a lot of fat. There's a version of this that greatly strengthens the argument - Country X has 10000000 people with high fat intake and 1 guy with low fat intake. Again, AN individual just means 1. So it tells us absolutely nothing!

Yup! None of the argument relies on what the burgalars should or shouldn't do. So this is good. Another way to think about it is that it makes the nexus of the question on a different actor (the burgalar versus the government)

No - it's just a sufficiency relationship. Loss of belief is enough to make money disappear (sufficient) but it's not necessary. Put differently, we don't know that loss of belief is the ONLY THING that could make money disappear - maybe burning the money or crashing the economy could also make it disappear.

Somewhat? I'd say the difference is that "comparable" means the two are basically the same. If I say a burger is comparable to a chicken sandwich, I'm saying both of them have some fundamentally similar qualities - unhealthy, held by hand, etc. Consistent isn't so much about being the same/similar, but rather that one fact is not at odds or contradictory with another. So I wouldn't say a burger and sandwich are consistent per se, but I might say "Me waking up at 9am is consistent with me missing my bus" (that's too late, so it's logical to assume it might make me late).

A few things...

1) It's a strawman. Nobody is saying "just eat grain" - what nutritionist would say that! Obviously you should have fruits, vegetables, etc.

Imagine you had ths argument with your parents: mom says "eat less meat" and you reply by saying "well if I just ate chips, that's not healthy, so I should eat meat" - that's silly. Of course that's not your mom's point - she's not ruling out a more balanced diet.

2) It's outside the scope. We're discussing what's morally acceptable, not nutritional content. If the conclusion was about human health, this would be in-bound, but it's not - it's about moral acceptability.

No, it's not just temporal - it could have taken place within the time of the relationship but been outside of the marriage itself.

So in the year 2000, you and your spouse have a child. Or in the year 2000, your spouse cheats on you and has a child with someone else. Both of them are "during the marriage" if that marriage is in the year 2000. But obviously those are different situations with respect to making child support payments...one was a product within the marriage/partners, and the other was not.

Hmmm I don't agree. You're right the wording is weird, but think about what a MC question is doing. We're being asked to look at the stimulus and, among the existing lines, pick out the conclusion.

For this question, we're supplying a conclusion that is logically implied but NOT stated explicitly. This is what MSS is - inferential. You extrapolate to something that's not directly stated.

Now, I will say, the renovation line is very, very close to being explicitly stated. But it's not, so it's still MSS. We know that the best strategy to attract people is to renovate, and that attracting people is good. Put those together...means we should renovate (Choice B).

I wouldn't overthink the "positive effect" language - it really just means doing something beneficial/a good thing for that particular cause. We know that a central criticism is that Ellison didn't do much to deal with politics - so the point is that "they'd have been happier if he helped with politics/was beneficial" - that's all it's saying

This one is tough! No, I wouldn't say "talking about their reason" is a disagreement - that's too loose. But I'd say that choice E satisfies the more exacting threshold of "there's textual support to say that they disagree" if you look closely.

What would Jenkins think about E? Jenkins would say YES! There's no discussion for Jenkins of the risk to researchers at all, but Jenkins clearly worries about the risk to the research itself - it's their entire argument.

What about Lurano? Lurano says NO! Lurano's argument is even clearer - Lurano explicitly contrasts the risks of research itself with the harm to the researchers (by saying that the research itself will be fine since it's plenty cold, but we avoid hurting the researchers).