Hi, I'm interested!

When I saw Paleontologist's analogy I was like, how can aerial wing and aquatic fin mechanisms be the same? But then I saw E - author needs those two things to be comparable in order to make that conclusion make sense

I got this right through POE although I didn't have absolute confidence in E. I just skipped after seeing that all the rest ACs except E are nonsense.

Wrong ACs:

A(long-standing practice isn't mentioned), B(explanation means "cause" and there is no causal relationship in stimulus - this was a red flag. But also, author doesn't need to provide a rationale for why people disaprove - not a flaw), C(author equates not being aware with disapproval, but doesn't assume that such unawareness is a bad sign), D(other reasons for unionizing is irrelevant and off-topic. Again, author's argument is about 'majority disapproves -> we shouldn't do it,' and author doesn't need to provide all the nitty-gritty details about why we should unionize)

Correct AC:

E is saying that author confuses "actively saying no" with "not saying yes"

Author's conclusion is "majority" disapproves attempt. In that majority, there are like 80% of people who are just unaware AND like 10% of people who are aware but believe that unionizing isn't a good idea. First group isn't saying yes or no because they don't know anything, and the latter group probably would say no because of their beliefs but beliefs=/=actions, so we don't know for sure for them either. So in saying that majority disapproves unionizing, author is making some very unwarranted assumptions

In MSS inferences, you can make illegal negation causal inferences if the stimulus contains a causal relationship!

Stimulus contains causal reasoning:

Scientists choose their own problems + scientists formulate problems assigned to them ==> high success rate

You can reverse this to say that without cause, "probably" no effect either(it can't be worded to suggest certainty. It needs to only suggest probability to be correct):

If scientists didn't choose their own problems or scientists didn't formulate problems assigned to them ==> not high success rate

Choice C resembles this illegally negated causal logic:

If scientists chose their problems more widely(btw, less narrow? are you kidding me? confusing) ==> not high success rate

Got this via PoE. So many analogies here. Columnist first compares motorists' case and compares it with the city council; also compares city council's investment to other cities in the region.

When there's comparative reasoning, ask those four questions:

1. Are the two things being compared really comparable? (Is there a similarity between the two?)

2. If there is a similarity, is the similarity ACTUALLY RELEVANT to the author's conclusion?

Ex) A and B are both heavy smokers. A's lung is ****ed up, so B's must be too. > NOT RELEVANT

3. Are there material differences between the two things that the author IGNORED?

4. Even if there is a similarity between the two, is the author's conclusion TOO STRONG? Is the conclusion WARRANTED(justified)?

Read this too fast and got it wrong and corrected it in my BR

Obviously wrong answers: B(not illegal negation), C(reverses what subscriber did), E(not equivocation)

I chose D because I thought this was a straw man flaw(author takes other person's argument and distorts it as however she pleases, and then continues to respond to that distorted argument - I call this 'gaslighting'). The last sentence introduces something new - how am I supposed to know that Arnot actually assumes that government can be trusted in making that argument? But this could actually be Arnot’s assumption. Or it could be something subscriber made up–the truth is that based on stimulus we don’t know. And if we don’t know the original context/assumption, we don’t know if subscriber distorted it or not.

A - looking back this is a stereotypical weakenss-reject flaw. This is when author concludes that opponent's argument is wrong(stimulus says "conclusion is false") because the argument has a flaw in its evidence/assumption/etc. A weak/flawed assumption/evidence only leads to a weakened conclusion, and it cannot rule the conclusion completely false.

I thought LSAT didn't test outside knowledge LOL

Based on passage I knew that oldest rocks are at the furthest points from the crest of mid-ocean ridge. But how am I supposed to infer that the furthest from the mid-ocean ridge exists a continent?? My best guess was that since mid-ocean ridges would probably be located in the middle of the sea that at the furthest point of such crests would be some shallow ocean area. But no, there is land.. I understood this question immediately after seeing an image of sea floor spreading theory. https://vajiramandravi.com/current-affairs/sea-floor-spreading-theory/

Process of elimination:

B - contradicts passage. Magmas could flip polarity following Earth's polarity at the time but not Basalt. Basalt is either normal/reversed based on Earth's polarity at the time it cooled.

C - passage never mentions any information to infer such comparison between land and sea

D - we know that magnetic polarity may flip throughout Earth's ages but passage never mentions anything about the strength of such magnetic fields

E - contradicts passage. There's only two types of polarity based on passage: normal or reversed. If we assume that present-day magnetic polarity is normal, then at some point in the past existed a time when Earth's polarity was normal(because according to passage Earth keeps flipping its polarity over time), and a rock that cooled at that time would also have normal polarity.

My rationale was different from the explanation video, but

Rule1) exemplary record <> eligible(~exemp. record <> ~eligible)

Rule2) (Eligible +) life saved & exceeded expectations in one case this year → Should receive the award.

**I interpreted Rule 2 to mean that the police must have both saved a life and exceeded expectations within at least 1 single case that occurred this year. It is not enough to save a life in one case and exceed expectations in another.

The reason is the wording of the stimulus: it refers to "the act" saving someone's life, implying that the life-saving act is the same act that exceeded expectations.

The stimulus reaches two conclusions:

1. Franklin should receive the award.

2. Penn should not receive the award.

Franklin's case is straightforward. If Franklin satisfies Rule 1 (has an exemplary record, so is eligible) and also satisfies Rule 2 (performed a qualifying act that both saved a life and exceeded expectations this year), then the sufficient conditions of the rules are met. Therefore, Franklin should receive the award.

Penn case is more interesting. Revisit Rule 2:

• Eligible + life saved & exceeded expectations in one case this year → Should receive the award

• (Contrapositive) ~award → ~eligible or ~perform life-saving, expectation-exceeding act in 1 case this year

Notice what this means:

• If someone is not awarded, then at least one of the sufficient conditions must be missing.

• However, if someone didn't perform a qualifying act in the sufficient condition, you cannot conclude they should not receive the award. That would be the illegal negation of the rule.

**Conditional reasoning reminder(A → B):

• A is present → B must be present. O (Valid)

• A is absent → No conclusion. XX (Illegal negation if you infer ~B)

• B is present → No conclusion. XX (Illegal reversal)

• B is absent → A must be absent. O (Contrapositive)

Therefore, Penn's failure to save a life/exceed expectations does not by itself justify the conclusion that Penn should not receive the award. To validly conclude that Penn should not receive the award, we need Penn to fail Rule 1 by not having an exemplary record (which means Penn is not eligible).

So, any AC that either doesn't mention exemplary record or says that Penn or Penn+Franklin both has exemplary record is WRONG: B, C, D, E

Not necessary to do conditional diagramming for this one.

Author assumes that if the press agent did not tell every reporter everything about the accident, then some reporters must know more than others(implicit flawed assumption), making a scoop possible.

But that does not follow.

The only thing the premise tells us is that the press agent did not tell every reporter everything. That still leaves open another possibility: maybe the press agent told nothing (or told the exact same limited information) to everyone. In that case, no reporter would know more than any other reporter, so no one could scoop the others.

Choice E points out exactly this overlooked possibility. A simpler way to think about it:

• For a scoop to happen, one reporter must know more than another.

• The argument assumes that “press agent not telling everyone everything” automatically creates unequal knowledge.

• But equal knowledge could still exist even if the press agent did not tell everyone everything.

So the conclusion is unsupported because author assumes unequal knowledge among reporters without proving it.

Wrong answers:

A) what if the press agent told "some amount of thing" about the accident to some reporters? Those reporters can still take that and scoop others

B) "need not"? Doing A being not necessary for reporters doesn't mean reporters cannot or won't do A / necessity =/= real action

C) let's say 20% of reporters have been told something about the acciddent, and one goes on to inform all the others. Any other reporter among that 20% could have been told a different thing about the accident that they may not tell the otheres.

D) "Most knowledgeable" is irrelevant. Also, this signals that there is a discrepancy in knowledge levels among reporters about the accident, so that means someone can scoop others

--

**If you want to do this in a classic conditional diagramming way, which will take up so much time:

[stimulus]

Background information, s1) any reporter's knowledge about accident -> what the press agent has said

Premise, s2&s3) press agent told every reporter everything -> every reporter's knowledge level is same -> ~ scoop

Premise, s4 + conclusion, s5) ~ press agent told every reporter everything -> scoop

Author commits illegal negation: ~ press agent told every reporter everything -> (assumed: ~ every reporter's knowledge level is same) -> scoop

Author's flaw: "press agent not telling every reporter everything DOES NOT guarantee that every reporter's knowledge level is not the same," which in turn does not rule out the possibility for nobody being able to scoop

= Correct AC E just points out the author's flawed assumption by saying that "what if no reporter knows any more about the accident than any others? (=everyone's knowledge level is the same)"

I was torn between A and D, and chose A. But I made favors for the wrong AC. I interpreted shipping manager's premise that "there are other depts that are also necessary for company's success" as "several departments must work in conjuction for the company's sucess, so any one without the other is not necessary/important by itself" which was a flaw I committed in my thinking process.

Saying that other departments are "also" necessary for the success does not automatically mean that "sales dept 'taken by itself' is not important." That's a huge leap in reasoning. Never assume what the author is saying if it's not justifiable by premises/intermediate or main conclusions or the bridge between them.

Also correct answer threw me off by the word "absurd," which is a strong value judgement word. However, if a department's necessity earns highest priority, but there are more than one department that is also necessary for company's sucess, that leads to an impossible result - you can't give everyone the highest priority(I also conveniently thought that in that case you can rank the necessity and give the more necessary one the highest priority, but that is NOT warranted by the stimulus. After all, stimulus is not talking about ranking necessity or the amount of necessity one department has over the other). So I guess in this case, the term absurd is justified.

I eliminated A(matter is irrelevant), C(stimulus says unlikely to contain"any" large planets), E(having Earth size planet has nothing to do with life emerging)

Then I get why B is wrong because survival =/= emergence of life.

But for D, I got confused because even if there aren't any large comets "within(contain)" the planetary system, large coments can come from outside the planetary system and strike. But I guess D is the best option out of the five choices because if we presume that 1) the chance of large comet outside the planetary system striking remains the same BUT 2) the chance of large coment inside the planetary system striking is nonexistent, that still weakens the conclusion of the stimulus by reducing the chances of a comet strike overall.