7 sage drill filters this as a necessary assumption question. JY & tutors purport this is a sufficient assumption question. Slightly confused which one it is?

@Sanique Rowe I've spoken with a large group of students and we've concluded that 7sage's recent decison co-opts our display options into a one size fits all "Test day" view with smaller screen. This is great for simulation but painful for everyday drilling and review. There are different use cases - simulating test day vs comfortably practicing and analysing problems. They're not mutually exclusive. @J.Y. Ping Please bring back the older larger screen view (or at a minimum a toggle) so user can choose the interface that fits the task. Pretty much every other platform still offers both.

@Max Thompson Trying to tease out more generally the AC C trap posed by the second condition was set up in such a way that is was neither true nor false. My first reaction to AC C clause to qualify as non-violation was wouldn't its status have to be false to rule it out as not triggering an argument?

Now what Im taking away from your explanation a little more generally is the Adsense of evidence (could be 50/50 whatever or 99/1 or 0) allows us to de facto reject this argument thereby making it non-violation? No evidence for a rule violation means we can't prove it happened - ok. But it didn't prove it didn't happen either. Its neutral on truth/falisty so why not stay agnostic? Is the bigger lesson take away on this LSAT trap: Absence of evidence doesnt not prove a rule violation occurred (or didn't) leave it open ended. So for rule violations do we generally assume burden of proof principles for rule based questions where it defaults to a "no violation" unless evidence is clearly provided - treating it as a compliant to avoid unsubstantiated claims. So its not concluding 100% false its "unproven, so assume not"?

Interested to participate if link is still available

First impression, this was tough because the argument was pretty solid at first impression. The conclusion, "spending relative to income" in my mind accounted for the entire market of car buyers purchasing power has gone down (or they spend more per dollar on a car then their parents generation). Apparently that was a wrong inference? But semantically the universal group of buyers was inexpliclity defined as only "one person" - one unit defined. Not the entire market of buyers (businesses, families etc) which is presented in AC E as a "proportion" Now, when we see "weaken the argument' based on a proportional claim, can we define that as "what proportion of buyers are paying more for their car are individuals and not individuals? So if AC E is true do you have to accept the proof the if other groups are paying more for cars, this means the individual could still be paying more for cars but the INCREASE IN PRICE TO INDIVIDUAL INCOME RELATIONSHIP IS WEAKENED HOWEVER SLIGHTLY BECAUSE CAR PRICES HAVE BEEN DRIVER BY OTHER DEMAND GROUPS (business, family) - NOT JUST INDIVIDUALS? I think I was trying to completely disprove the conclusion, and now realise AC E presents doubt. Its so subtle to weaken but that still does the job the question asks for..

@DeeTee down

@haena Thanks for the explanation. The unstated assumption was there was only 2 sufficient conditions to guarantee the argument.? Either one present satisfies the conclusion which is what AC B demonstrates (in my mind) as legitimate (not in fact describing a flaw contrary to the AC C) ... it demonstrates the classic limits for sufficient assumption predicament - even though a condition is "enough" for the argument, doesn't mean it's a universal proof to the conclusion. Other life events could just as well trigger a sufficient outcome. Almost seems common sense after deconstructing how narrow this was.

@Conner Kline Thank you for that clear breakdown. The most-most = some (formal argument #6) was the turning key that I overlooked.

If C's are not members of T's but all P's are members of T's then C and P are in distinct groups which is what AC E says. Haven't received a plain english explanation why AC E is incorrect: "No chordates are members of Pteropsida." This seems more of a direct assumption than connecting H to C. I thought they could in theory exist independently - just because two members (C and H) don't belong in one group (P and T) in my mind that's not a logic proof / inference they belong in a shared group of their own - perhaps another option is they co-exist independently in their own groups.

This helps explain the stimulus argument , yes, but this explanation doesn't help explain (in my mind) where the language in AC C goes wrong. AC C basically says the stimulus mistakes a necessary condition for the conclusion as a sufficient condition?

A was obvious.. but I misinterpreted "and" in my vernacular english to only mean both conditions (content duplication & 50 hire rule) must be met for funding so if one isn't met the other can't explain why the funding occur in absence of its twin condition not being met. Now I unders tand "AND" can grammatically be applied as "OR" .. which makes A totally viable.

Totally did not register "less reluctant" in AC D - meaning "more willing" to at first pass. No wonder I missed the Correct AC.

Came down to AC A vs E. Chose E at first, BR - A. E seemed attractive because both the stimulus and E deny the casual connection described (lax standards --> increase cancer rate) but I see now they diverge on the framing of "evidence". Stimulus says whether or not there's evidence or lack of evidence, it's not going to disprove the claim described above as a false, because it's impossible so many possibles causes(lol). It seems like A is more direct language on evidence + goes further acknowledge the broader argument of causality.

I interpret this conclusion of "actual spending hasn't changed" as they've continued to spend, if not on actual goods and services products, then AC A- they can continue to spend on debt (though the debt hasn't increased its annual historical amount) it still constitutes a valid source of spending but the savings remain "unchanged" or constant. AC B says spending on others - that introduces new spending which is not quantified. which leaves open the possibility it could be more of employed people savings is given to other relatives that in theory could shift "actual spending" pattern the author claims hasn't changed... Forget all the "negating logic techniques" it's a sheer common sense reasoning problem.

@kk558 Yeah it appears to be a functional workaround to the pre-baked videos. If the video's were done right, they would instanly pop up stimulus & set of AC before the explanation begins thereby giving students a window of opportunity to pause it and apply it right there. one click nation.

Weaken assumption: For some reason I excluded "alternative explanatanatory factors" for this type of question because it brings in external information not stated in the stimulus. But yes, if the external information is assumed to be true, then it counts towards a weakening variable. Nonetheless, being fresh out of the curriculum, there's some lingering caution baked in my memory on using external info in the questions. It is too reductionist to ask what question types does external information in the AC not count?

This passage redundancy needs to be fixed J.Y. Our $ for value is really waning here.

The curriculum has copy pasted - repeated - this RC passage and Q's...? lol.

7Sage's tutorials would benefit students more if they presented all answer choices upfront, allowing students to think through in real time instead of spoon feeding answers one by one. 

Too much dense formulaic jargon. Flag post information to be generally aware of ok beneficial on a conceptual level. Though this approach overcomplicates a common sense approach needed to tackle answers.

This was difficult at first glance because the stimulus presents no clear conclusion (the conclusion is implied that having moire diversity of crop like farmers in the past would make it less vulnerable to crop diseases)..... I might be jumping commons sense at this point (I thought having an alternative way to protect the crops like replacing seed banks - doesn't actually protect the crops, it just replaces them after the fact they've been destroyed, so its not deterrent as much as it is a reaction solution?) Though common sense it makes sense ) sO WHY then A? I guess the inference while not great, suggested in my mind that diversity doesn't matter because they still got wiped out in the past, hence the argument to diversify doesn't actually work.

I interpreted the stimulus to suggest the conditions of a reducing atmosphere weren't present therefore lightning couldn't have occurred. ... unless there was a temporary event that permitted it to occur OR if there was another source for amino acids to be present which discounts the need for lightening to occur in the first place to achieve life on earth. This lead me to accept question E as most plausible source to that "other source" hypothesis. Error realised now is the question forces you to assume lightening is present, so the temporary atmosphere answer A (while additional inference made to the stimulus information has to be accepted as true - I had a hard time accepting that explanation in light of competing hypothesis but LSAT rules triumph real life logic.