@BenjaminOwen it would also increase the amount of caffeine (the irritant)

This was especially challenging because Q14 states that both passages are primarily concerned with addressing if the communication of animals is characterized by conscious intention, but only passage A seems to have a definitive answer for this.

@LowriThomas I'm not sure that we know from the statement "Dolphins can dive to greater depths than northern fur seals can" that dolphins can also stay submerged longer than northern fur seals can.

The rule in the stimulus states, "The longer an animal can stay submerged during a dive, the greater the depth the animal can reach." So, if dolphins and northern fur seals could stay submerged for the same amount of time, dolphins could still dive to greater depths than northern fur seals can without violating the rule. It seems like the rule doesn't rule out the possibility of a tie when we're inferring submergence time from depth ability.

#feedback JY's video explanation for (E) doesn't make sense to me. (E) is overly strong, but I wouldn't consider it to be an example of sufficiency-necessity confusion.

This was my thought process for eliminating (B):

Mapping out the conclusion in the stimulus

only one newspaper --> some important stories not adequately covered

contrapositive: all important stories adequately covered --> at least 2 newspapers

Having at least 2 newspapers is necessary, not sufficient, for all important stories to be adequately covered. Since the author doesn't conclude that having 2 newspapers is sufficient for all important stories to be adequately covered, (B) doesn't hurt the argument. Essentially, (B) tries to trap people through sufficiency-necessity confusion.

@jonathanghysels470 I thought that at first too, but (B) matches the strength of the claim in the stimulus ("none had attempted to draw upon a musical genre...") and (C) adds the additional layer of appearance rather than fact.

The explanation for (A) states that "This exhibits the author's attitude toward Duke Ellington, not Morrison." I understand that this exhibits the author's attitude toward African American music. While Duke Ellington's music may fit within that superset, the author wasn't referring to his music in particular as the "greatest artistic achievement and one of the greatest contributions to North American art". #feedback

@KR I had a similar thought, but eliminated (E) because of "significantly". There are other factors that might affect the demand for book-grade paper. Perhaps the increased "convenience for customers" and the ability to "[purchase] printed books that would've been designated out of print" would increase the number of books ordered that partially or fully counteracts the effects of less books being printed in anticipation of their being sold on the demand for book-grade paper.

@yorksyuku473 It's possible, but this is MSS, not MBT. Doesn't have to be ironclad.

#feedback The explanation for (B) does not make sense. It would make more sense for (D) if the typo (does --> doesn't) were fixed.

@Jsonf The stimulus does not say that ONLY early typewriters jammed, so I understand @pathom_ 's confusion. But I still chose (E) because it requires the least unreasonable assumption.

My explanation for eliminating C:

• Even if (C) were true, the major gap remains—we don’t know if the sufficient condition for the second premise was triggered. Were there any damaged or oxygen-starved nerve cells leaking glutamate at all? Being given this information doesn’t help if not. (D) offers that information (and actually goes beyond what is necessary for the argument to function). 

• Additionally, we don’t know if other neurotransmitters could also cause post-stroke brain damage if leaked from damaged or oxygen-starved cells. The premises specifically discussed high levels of glutamate in the blood, along with the fact that glutamate can kill nerve cells if leaking from damaged or oxygen-starved nerve cells. We don’t know if the effects of glutamate are similar to that of other neurotransmitters. 

• However, we do know that leaked glutamate can have harmful effects. (D) strengthens the connection between leaked glutamate and the study, which is definitely relevant. It eliminates other possible sources for the one harmful substance that we know about. On the other hand, (E) eliminates some alternate factors that aren’t necessarily relevant. (C) would have been better if it said “Glutamate is the only harmful substance that leaks from oxygen-starved or physically damaged nerve cells”, although the main gap would still be present.

This might be why it's MSS instead of MBT. It's strongly implied that when they say "there were more cookbooks sold", they mean there were more cookbooks sold last year than in any previous year". Based on the preceding sentence, this is what would make the most sense, as opposed to any other comparison.

#feedback Is anyone else's analysis also missing the diagram? The analysis says "We'll take the contrapositive of the conclusion to make things easier to understand, and diagram it as follows:" but doesn't show the diagram for me.

My main area of confusion with JY's explanation is that he chains up the premise from the stimulus and answer choice (A) by identifying a similarity: /LP.

However, /LP in the stimulus means that the disclaimer does not offer legal protection. /LP in answer choice (A) means that the company does not need legal protection. I'm not sure why he can equate the two. After all, someone can be offered something that they don't need.

There were two red flags that I identified in answer choice (B):

1. It doesn’t help justify that there should be a “general reduction” in bringing new drugs to the market. After all, “some” could literally just mean one new drug. It could also mean most or all, but (B) requires an unwarranted assumption that (A) does not in order to strengthen the argument.

2. (A) engages with both existing premises to support the conclusion, bridging the antihistamine-to-general-conclusion gap. (B) only identifies with one premise. If this premise were added back to the argument, the antihistamine premise would seem even more useless and out of place. This is another reason that (A) strengthens the existing reasoning structure far better than (B) does.

JY states that the main conclusion is the first sentence ("a contention of many of my colleagues... is unfounded"), but the analysis of the stimulus states that the conclusion is "the high differential should have an opposite effect". JY's version makes more sense to be, but it would be helpful if the two could be consistent with each other. #feedback

#feedback I don't think I agree with the explanation for (E): The conclusion is about people who get CE. Whether or not people recover from OMS without treatment is irrelevant to the claim that CE becomes more dangerous at high altitudes.

I think that (E) is relevant in that it strengthens the argument (but ultimately, it is unnecessary). From the context, we know that cerebral edema can be life threatening without the correct treatment from the onset. If the symptoms for mountain sickness and cerebral edema are similar and someone displays these symptoms at a high altitude, then they might be misdiagnosed with mountain sickness, especially since it’s more common than cerebral edema. Wrongly attributing the symptoms to mountain sickness might lead to the person receiving little or no special treatment if (E) were true, which would be dangerous if they actually had cerebral edema instead. While this strengthens the argument, though, it’s not necessary. When stuck between (E) and (A), I searched for the difference between them and found that (E) could almost be considered a subset of (A). But while the negation test works for (A), it does not for (E). Even if (E) were false, the conclusion could still be true based on the premise as long as (A) stands.

(D) would've taken me a while to map out. When I come across a complex answer, I like to translate it to a more familiar example with a similar structure to better understand it under time pressure.

During the drill, the example that I thought of was, "If you can’t go to the store, then the only way to return the product is by mailing it back." In this case, there are only two ways to return the product: going to the store, or mailing it back. Similarly, (D) is saying that there are only two ways to detect sentient existence: the sentient communicating with us, or humans sending a spacecraft. 

Happy to talk about my study group in Chicago with other people from 7Sage!

@peter03.jin 7Sage has a lesson on biconditionals. The first clause was a conditional statement, and the second clause erroneously switched the conditions (sufficiency-necessity confusion). So, taken together, the author seems to think that "makes an agreement <--> obligation to fulfill it", which is a biconditional statement. Any two conditions that are always together and never apart are in a biconditional relationship. (The second type of biconditional is two conditions that are never together and always apart.)

@ColinErickson HUGE timesaver for me, really appreciate it.

Also wanted to make a note for other users that it might be helpful to make a copy of the sheet and make edits. Since this sheet isn't from 7Sage, there might be some minor errors (like the or + negated example is incorrect; the example provided is the contrapositive rather than the negation). Not the end of the world, but helpful to make corrections as you go

This lesson says that the problem with the banana argument is that the two-year-old might not be aware that all bananas are fruits, so she can’t make the connection from “I’m eating a banana” to “I’m eating a fruit.”

However, even if she was aware, she might not be able to draw the inference, right? She's two. So I don't think it would be valid even if it were edited to be:

"My two-year-old believes she is eating a banana. She believes that all bananas are fruits. Therefore, my two-year-old believes she is eating a fruit."

@KevinLin Maybe they were thinking of the word "decreases" (verb vs adjective):

• Causal: Jumping into freezing water decreases one’s ability to perform well on the LSAT.

• Non-causal: Most people experience decreased mental functioning when they’re at a party.

#help Are there explanations on the new site for this? I see an explanation on the old site but I know it's shutting down in a few days. https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-23-section-2-question-17/