Hi! I'm Sydney, a tutor with 7Sage.

Totally understandable!

One thing that helps is to stop thinking of the main point as just a summary of the topic. It’s usually not “this passage is about jazz history” or “this passage is about a scientific theory.” Instead, ask: What is the author trying to get me to understand, accept, or reconsider?

After each paragraph, I’d pause for a second and ask what role that paragraph played. For example:

Paragraph 1: introduces an old view/problem

Paragraph 2: presents a new theory or complication

Paragraph 3: gives support/examples

Paragraph 4: explains the author’s final takeaway

Then before going to the questions, force yourself to say the passage’s main point in a simple sentence. Something like: “The author argues that X theory is promising but incomplete,” or “The author explains why a traditional interpretation of X should be revised.” It doesn't need to be perfect or fancy!

The correct answer will usually do these things:

1. Cover the passage as a whole, not just one paragraph or example.

2. Reflect the author’s actual opinion or purpose.

3. Stay specific enough that it could only describe this passage.

Most wrong answers are usually wrong because they are too narrow, too broad, or they distort the author’s attitude. So if an answer only mentions one detail, it’s probably not the main point. If it sounds like a vague encyclopedia entry on the topic, it’s probably too broad. And if it makes the author sound more certain, skeptical, enthusiastic, or critical than they really were, be careful.

For practice, I’d recommend doing a few passages untimed and writing or saying out loud a main point prediction before looking at the questions. Then compare that prediction to the correct answer.

Student Question

I understand why A is wrong, but if A is wrong because we don’t actually know if the hymns attributed to Homer were actually him, can’t you apply that same reasoning to C and therefore eliminate C? C is talking about works known to have been written by the same modern writer. But just because it’s known to have been written by the same writer, does not mean that it was. I think the difference between A and C comes down to this: A does not attack the author’s main assumption, while C does. The assumption is: if the Iliad and the Odyssey differ greatly in tone, vocab, etc., then they must each come from different poets. Is this correct reasoning? In addition, what else would make C correct because I feel like if you ARE applying the reasoning to A that we don’t know

Tutor Answer

In (A), the uncertainty is built into the way the answer choice is written. The works are only “attributed to Homer,” which can be said to signal some doubt about who wrote it.

But in (C), the answer says the works are “known to have been written by the same modern writer.” That is presented as a solid, reliable fact, and we are supposed to take it as true.

So we do not treat (C) as uncertain in the same way. The LSAT wants us to assume that those modern works really are by the same author.

To your second point, you’re right about the deeper reasoning.

The author’s argument is:

• The Iliad and the Odyssey differ greatly in tone, vocabulary, etc.

• Therefore, they were not written by the same poet

The underlying assumption is that if two works differ greatly in those respects, they cannot be by the same author.

That’s the assumption (C) directly attacks by giving us a counterexample: a known single author produced works that differ just as much

That shows that large differences do NOT rule out a single author. So the author’s reasoning collapses.

Let's think about why (A) doesn’t do that.

Even if the hymns differ more from the Iliad, we still don’t know:

• whether Homer actually wrote them

• whether a single confirmed author can produce such differences

So (A) does not clearly undermine the assumption...it just introduces more uncertainty.

Student Question

Could you also help me better break down why answer choice C is incorrect as well. Because I thought the examples the author made in Passage B describing rational behavior (like when they say “ act toward a person as that person has acted toward others is to treat that person as a rational being”) were the specific cases being used to explain the general ideas of Kant’s philosophy

Tutor Answer

For (C) to be correct, both passages would need to:

• start with or rely on a concrete, specific example

• and use that example to support a broader general claim

Passage A does this clearly.

It introduces a specific case:

• a harmless pathological liar

Then uses that case to support a broader point:

• even if someone is a liar, that alone is not sufficient reason to lie to them

But Passage B does not do this.

You pointed to lines like “to act toward a person as that person has acted…”

But that is not a specific case. That is the general rule itself. Passage B is really abstract. It talks about rational beings, acting immorally, duties and rights.

But it never gives a concrete scenario like a liar, a thief, or a particular situation.

Instead, it stays at the level of general philosophical reasoning the whole time.

Student Question

I am still a bit confused on why D is the incorrect answer. During blind review I thought that because the line of right vs duty being mentioned later in the passage could be a reason as to why it’s incorrect, but it still didn’t help me rule it out completely since I thought paragraph 1 still described the idea of a rational person having a right to treat others a certain way but they are not required to do so.

And I thought that line of reasoning matched with passage A saying even though a person is a pathological liar, that does not mean we are automatically required to lie back to them.I read answer B quickly and could not comprehend how it could be the right answer so I eliminated it incorrectly and thought then by consequence during blind review it could be answer C since if the liar is not directly harming another person through their lies there is no reason to think they shouldn't be treated as a rational being.

I’m wondering if you can help me better break down why answer B is correct and not D or C?

Tutor Answer

Passage A says that there are many cases in which we should not lie to someone who lies. For example, a harmless liar. They have no right to the truth. But we must also consider whether we hurt ourselves if we lie to him. (I thought about someone who lies about where they bought their shirt from versus someone who lies about unsafe behavior that could put them in danger.)

The Kantian argument in the first paragraph of Passage B is that if a rational actor treats others a certain way, we have the right to treat that actor the same way. In other words, if a rational person acts in a certain way towards others, then that person accepts that it’s fine to act that way towards them.

It might seem like what Passage A says here is incompatible with what the first paragraph of Passage B says.

But, notice how Passage B tells us that what they are saying only applies to rational actors.

Passage B doesn’t tell us anything about how to treat irrational people. That's why AC (B) works. If (B) is true, then the Kantian argument doesn’t apply to a pathological liar.

If pathological lying is not rational behavior, then the Kantian framework does not apply to that person at all. That removes the conflict entirely:

• Passage B no longer says we have a right to lie to the pathological liar

• Passage A can maintain that we should not lie to them

So (B) resolves the conflict by showing the two passages are talking about different categories of people.

Now let’s look at (D): “Having the right to lie to a pathological liar is not equivalent to having a duty to do so.”

Your instinct here is very understandable, especially because Passage B later talks about the distinction between rights and duties.

But here’s the key issue: (D) does not actually solve the conflict.

Even if (D) is true, the Kantian argument would still say:

• A liar gives others the right to lie to them

That still directly clashes with Passage A’s claim that the liar’s behavior is not sufficient justification for lying. Passage A is not just saying “you don’t have a duty to lie." It’s saying the liar’s behavior alone is not enough reason to justify lying at all.

So (D) leaves the core tension untouched. It weakens the obligation, but it does not remove the permission, which is where the conflict lies.

Now let’s look at (C): “Pathological liars, if harmless, deserve to be treated as rational beings by others.”

This actually makes the conflict worse, not better.

If we treat the pathological liar as a rational being, then the Kantian argument fully applies. That means:

• Because the liar lies to others, we have the right to lie to them

But Passage A is specifically arguing that even in the case of a harmless pathological liar, their lying is not sufficient reason to lie back.

So (C) pushes the two passages further into disagreement instead of reconciling them.

So overall:

• (B) works because it limits the Kantian argument to rational actors and excludes pathological liars from that category, removing the conflict.

• (D) fails because it still allows the Kantian “right to lie,” which Passage A is pushing back against.

• (C) fails because it forces the Kantian framework to apply to pathological liars, which directly contradicts Passage A.

Student Question

I’m having trouble fully understanding why D is correct and A is incorrect. I understand that the unreasonable consequence in passage A is the harm to others, and now I can kind of see how in passage B the line “But the assertion of a duty to punish seems excessive...” is another consequence. But it still isn't super clear to me and I found myself a bit more confused after watching the video. Could you help me break down the specific lines in passage B that indicate an unreasonable consequence, because I think I misunderstood Passage B as saying we should match peoples behavior whether they were acting right or wrong.

Tutor Answer

Answer choice (D) says that both authors suggest that a view leads to unreasonable consequences. That’s exactly what both passages do.

In Passage A, the author considers the idea that it is fair to lie to liars. But then the author shows a negative consequence of that idea: it causes harm to oneself, to others, and to general trust. So even if the idea initially seems fair, it leads to problematic results.

Passage B works the same way, but I think the reasoning is a bit harder to see. The key line is: “But the assertion of a duty to punish seems excessive.” That is the author signaling that something has gone wrong with the reasoning.

The author then explains why it is excessive: if we say we have a duty to treat people as they treat others, then we would have a duty to do to all rational persons everything that they do to others whether that be good, bad, or indifferent. That's the other important line.

This is the unreasonable consequence. It means that if someone lies, we must lie; if someone harms, we must harm; if someone does anything at all, we must mirror it. That creates an extremely broad and impractical obligation, which is why the author calls it excessive.

So the structure in Passage B is: introduce a principle, follow it to its logical conclusion, show that the result is excessive or unreasonable, and then reject the idea as a duty.

Note that the author of Passage B is not saying we should match people’s behavior. The author is showing that if we treat that idea as a duty, it leads to an unreasonable result. So the idea is being criticized, not endorsed.

This is why (D) is correct. In both passages, the author takes a view that might seem reasonable and then shows that it leads to a problematic or excessive consequence.

Answer choice (A) is incorrect because neither passage is really structured around anticipating and refuting objections. Passage A mentions a competing idea but does not systematically refute objections; instead, it highlights harmful consequences. Passage B does not present objections from others at all; it develops a line of reasoning and shows that it leads to an excessive result.

An example of anticipating and refuting an objection would look like this:

“I argue that we should not lie to liars. Someone might object that liars deserve to be lied to. But that objection fails because lying causes harm to oneself and to others, so fairness alone is not sufficient justification.”

Bottom line: Passage B is not saying we should match people’s behavior. It is saying that if we treat that idea as a duty, it leads to an excessive and unreasonable obligation.

@Rena12345

You’re right that the passage never tells us whether insecticides are effective at killing cyclamen mites. The only insecticide discussed (parathion) actually kills the predators, not the pests.

But the key to understand here is that:

(C) does not require us to know that insecticides are effective (or ineffective) against cyclamen mites.

From the passage we know:

1. Natural predators (T-mites) are effective at controlling the pest (C-mites).

2. Using an insecticide (parathion) makes things worse overall, because it kills the predators and leads to larger pest populations.

The author even explicitly says that using a pesticide here would do “far more harm than good.”

(C) is not saying: “Insecticides are worse than predators at killing cyclamen mites.”

Instead, it’s saying something weaker and more general: only use insecticides if natural predators are inadequate.

That is supported. Because even though we don’t know how insecticides affect cyclamen mites directly, we do know:

• Predators work

• At least some insecticide use can backfire badly

So it makes sense that the author would agree with a principle like: “If predators are already doing the job, don’t introduce insecticides because they can disrupt the system and make things worse.”

So yes, we don’t know how specific insecticides affect cyclamen mites. But we do not need to.

@shanumanu I’m so glad to hear it. Awesome work!! :)

Student Question

I thought B was correct, since B → GR(G), and prosecutor brought charges, so the host is restating in the conclusion what it is implying in its evidence? What would be an example of circular reasoning in this case?

Tutor Answer

The television host says:

1. The defendant had a strong alibi and was acquitted.

2. But there must still be good reason to think the defendant is not completely innocent.

3. Why? Because the prosecutor brought charges.

• Premise: The prosecutor charged the defendant.

• Conclusion: Therefore there must be some reason to think the defendant isn’t innocent.

The flaw is that the host is treating the prosecutor’s charging decision as reliable authority about guilt.

That’s exactly what (C) describes.

(B) would mean the argument is doing something like this:

• The defendant is not innocent because the defendant is not innocent. Or

• The defendant must be guilty because the prosecutor charged someone who must be guilty.

But the host does not assume that the prosecutor only charges guilty people. The host just assumes the prosecutor’s judgment is evidence worth trusting. The host provides reasoning that is different than what the conclusion is; that means it can't be circular.

A circular reasoning answer is very rarely correct. If it is circular reasoning, you would likely be able to tell pretty easily because it's hard to disguise. It would need to be something that looked like: the defendant must be guilty, because clearly they are guilty.

Student Question

I was considering AC A. but ruled it out because even though it was narrowing the scope of the argument, it was still showing the clients had improved in some way. Could it be explained to me on why it’s still the correct AC?

Tutor Answer

The researcher says:

1. Studies show that clients in different kinds of short-term psychotherapy improve by similar amounts.

2. Therefore, the improvement must come from something common to all psychotherapies (like someone listening to the client).

So the argument depends heavily on the studies accurately measuring improvement and showing that all therapies lead to similar improvement.

Now look at what answer choice A introduces.

It says the studies measured improvement mainly by immediate symptom relief and ignored other kinds of improvement.

That matters because it means the studies may have captured only one narrow type of improvement.

So it becomes possible that:

• Therapy A produces much greater long-term improvement

• Therapy B produces mostly short-term symptom relief

But if the studies only measured immediate symptom relief, they might incorrectly conclude the therapies are equally effective.

This directly weakens the argument.

The researcher’s conclusion depends on the claim that all kinds of psychotherapy lead to similar levels of improvement.

But if the studies measured only one narrow type of improvement, then the evidence doesn’t justify that claim.

Different therapies could still produce different kinds or levels of improvement that the studies simply failed to measure.

So overall, the argument is not trying to prove that psychotherapy works. It is trying to prove why it works. (A) undermines the evidence used to support that causal claim by showing the studies may have measured improvement incorrectly or incompletely.

Even if some improvement still occurred, the researcher can’t rely on those studies to conclude that the improvement must come from something common to all therapies.

That’s enough to weaken the argument.

Student Question

Wouldn’t the first sentence of the second paragraph suggest that she did in fact transform the field of anthropology, subsequently making AC A correct. Also how does the role of African dance affect this answer choice.

Tutor Answer

The line you are pointing to says:

“As an anthropologist in the 1930s, Dunham was one of the pioneers in the field of dance ethnology.”

This tells us two things:

• She worked as an anthropologist

• She was a pioneer in dance ethnology (a subfield studying dance culturally)

But notice what it does not say:

• It does not say she transformed anthropology

• It does not say she created innovative research methodologies for anthropology

• It does not say her work changed the discipline as a whole

Being a pioneer in one subfield is much narrower than transforming an entire academic field.

That’s the first problem with (A).

The passage repeatedly emphasizes something different than what (A) says. It says that her dual expertise in anthropology and in choreography

allowed her to bring traditional dance techniques into modern North American dance.

So the main focus of the passage is her impact on modern dance, not anthropology.

Also, the passage says:

• she researched Caribbean dance forms with special interest in their origins in African culture.

That means she studied how Caribbean dances came from African traditions. But (A) subtly changes that idea into a claim that she methodologically connected multiple dance traditions together, which the passage never states.

Student Question

I am getting confused between AC A and AC C because both use pretty strong words. AC A uses unwilling and AC C uses not constrained. How do we prove either, like, how do we prove if she was unwilling or that she was no constrained. I feel like you can’t, so I just don’t know how to choose the right answer amongst the two. Please help, thanks!

Tutor Answer

The passage isn’t trying to explain Jewett’s personal feelings or preferences. It never suggests that she personally disliked writing about children or religion. Instead, the passage explains the different conceptions of fiction held by Jewett and by the earlier domestic novelists.

The earlier domestic novelists believed that fiction should serve moral and religious instruction. The passage says their works were often meant to promote domestic morality and religious belief and that it was not uncommon for the same book to function as a novel, a child-rearing manual, and a tract on Christian duty.

Because they viewed fiction as serving moral and religious instruction, themes like child-rearing and religion naturally took on a central role in their works.

Jewett, however, held a different conception of fiction. Her writing reflects the view that fiction is pure art and is valuable in itself rather than as a tool for teaching moral or religious lessons.

Because of that conception, her works did not need to include themes like religion or child-rearing. That’s exactly what answer choice C captures. It asks why Jewett was “not constrained” to feature children and religion as prominently as the domestic novelists were. The passage explains that the earlier novelists’ conception of fiction made those themes much more central to their works, while Jewett’s conception did not.

Answer choice A, on the other hand, says Jewett was “unwilling” to feature those themes. “Unwilling” suggests a personal preference or refusal...that she didn’t want to write about those topics. But the passage never tells us anything about her personal attitude toward them.

Overall:

• "Unwilling” = a claim about Jewett’s personal motivation which is not supported by the passage. She may have been willing but chose to highlight other features instead.

• “Not constrained” = a claim about the literary framework she was working within which the passage directly explains

Student Question:

Doesn’t AC D imply fewer people will be able to afford the new anitbiotic, so fewer people will get treatment and thus there will be an outbreak of new diseases? Don’t see how this answer is irrelevant

Tutor Answer:

Let's talk about the stimulus a bit first.

The author’s prediction is that:

• Using newer antibiotics will likely lead to an outbreak of diseases caused by drug-resistant bacteria.

This is how the author gets there:

1. Companies stop producing penicillin.

2. Doctors must use stronger antibiotics even when unnecessary.

3. Therefore → drug-resistant bacteria outbreaks.

So the missing premise should help explain why using stronger antibiotics more often → more drug-resistant bacteria.

(A) says: drug-resistant bacteria flourish when there isn’t competition from other bacteria.

New antibiotics kill a wider variety of bacteria.

So when we use them:

• they wipe out lots of bacteria

• resistant ones survive

• resistant ones now face less competition

• they spread

That directly explains why stronger antibiotics increase resistant bacteria.

For (D), it sounds like you are thinking of a chain like this:

• expensive → fewer people can afford treatment → fewer people treated → diseases spread

But none of that is in the stimulus. We do not know anything about the actual cost to patients, and we definitely don't know whether the cost would affect whether or not they get treatment.

Even if treatment were expensive, that wouldn’t explain the author’s claim.

The argument’s concern is that using the new antibiotics more often will create resistant bacteria.

But (D) would actually suggest the opposite -- that if the drugs are expensive, then maybe fewer people would use them.

So (D) doesn’t support the prediction.

Student Question:

I understand why A is correct because Varela is saying that instead of an investigation being motivated by curiosity or advancement of knowledge, the advancement of knowledge can simultaneously be motivated by curiosity. I do not understand why B is wrong because Varela is also disputing the validity of the claim that an investigation can only be motivated by one of those factors.

Tutor Answer:

To evaluate (B), we first need to ask what the principle is.

Pulford’s principle is:

• Investigations into private health matters are justified only if they advance scientific knowledge.

Varela’s point is that curiosity and scientific advancement are not opposites. Curiosity often produces scientific knowledge.

So Valera is saying Pulford’s distinction is flawed.

Pulford treats curiosity and scientific advancement as mutually exclusive. But Varela says, actually, curiosity leads to scientific discovery

So based on what she says, the distinction collapses.

(B) says Varela disputes a principle Pulford explicitly states.

But Varela does not dispute the principle:

Investigations are justified if they advance scientific knowledge. Varela would actually agree with that.

She’s saying:

Investigations motivated by curiosity can still advance scientific knowledge.

So she is not rejecting the principle. She’s rejecting the either/or framing Pulford used earlier.

Think of it this way:

• Pulford says investigations are justified only if they advance science.

• Varela does NOT say: no, that rule is wrong.

• Instead she says that curiosity often leads to scientific advancement, so your distinction doesn’t work.

So Varela attacks the distinction, not the rule. But it's possible or even likely that Varela agrees with the actual rule.

Student Question

I don’t understand why Passage A thinks that rivalry is misguided. The author never seems to insert his opinion into the passage about this. He just makes the argument that habituation and rivalry increase or decrease relative happiness, and then he gives an example of East Germany. But I don’t know if that example is sufficient to establish that the author thinks that rivalry is misguided. We actually don’t really know the author’s attitude.

Tutor Answer

Passage A starts with a paradox:

• Within a society: richer people are happier than poorer people.

• Over time: when everyone gets richer, society does not become happier.

So the author asks: why is that?

The explanation they give us is:

• People compare themselves to others, and the “reference point” keeps rising.

• This happens because: we get used to higher living standards and we care about how we rank relative to others.

So happiness depends on relative income, not absolute income.

The strongest clue about the author’s attitude is the study in paragraph 4 where participants choose between:

• A: You earn $50k while others earn $25k

• B: You earn $100k while others earn $200k

Most choose A.

The author is telling us that means people prefer

having less money overall if it means they earn more than others. This is irrational if your goal is actual well-being, because $100k is objectively more resources than $50k, yet people sacrifice that just to win the comparison.

So the author is showing that rivalry distorts our choices.

The author doesn't outright say that rivalry is dumb or bad.

But look at these lines:

“We do not foresee how we adjust to material possessions, so we over-invest in acquiring them, at the expense of leisure.”

That sentence is a clear evaluation:

• “over-invest” → implies a mistake

• “at the expense of leisure” → implies harm

So the author is saying people misjudge what will make them happy.

Putting all that together:

Passage A suggests that people:

1. Misunderstand how happiness works

2. Chase relative status instead of real well-being

3. End up overinvesting in money and underinvesting in leisure

So someone who wants more money than their neighbors is acting based on a mistaken understanding of happiness.

Student Question

How is the third position differing from the second in detail if both the first and second position have less detail than the third?

Tutor Answer

The passage introduces us to three positions:

1. Art stood high above the present/ the everyday (the non-radicals)

2. Art must be rooted in concrete reality (the radicals)

3. Dostoyevsky's position

The passage spends pretty much the rest of the passage telling us why Dostoyevsky's position is different from the radical view, e.g. Dostoyevsky says that there is no fixed reality, his view is that artistic merit is the most important thing.

So when (C) says the third view is differentiated from the second in detail, they mean that the passage went into detail on how Dostoyevsky's view is different from the second. We know that's true because the passage spend almost all of the passage telling us why they are different.

Student Question

I found this question to be extremely difficult. how would you recommend going about these kinds of questions in the future?

Tutor Answer

For questions like this, I like to think of the stimulus as a rule we have to follow. Then when we get to the answer choices, we are looking for the one scenario that follows the rule exactly. Four of the answer choices will break or not follow the rule in one way or another.

But before looking at the answer choices, we want to make sure we fully understand what the rule is saying.

I like to think about it in simpler terms or in terms that make more sense. Here's what it tells us:

• a just government only restricts its citizens rights if that restriction will prevent a threat to other citizens' property or health

Okay so unless the restriction would prevent a threat to other citizens' property or health, the government should not be restricting its citizens rights.

So if we see a restriction but we don't know whether or not it would prevent a threat to property or health, then we know the restriction isn't justified.

As we go through the answer choices, we just need to see if the scenario follows our rule.

(A) says the government could restrict racing sports cars on public highways.

• Okay so there is a restriction here

• To be justified, the restriction must protect people against a property or health threat

• Can we reasonably say that prohibiting illegal racing of sports cars on public highways would protect people against a threat to either their property or health?

• Yes, I think we could actually justify both. It's reasonable that this could damage people's cars or injure them.

(A) also says the government wouldn't ban the sale of sports cars. This also follows our rule because just owning a car doesn't directly threaten other people, so the government would not be justified in restricting this.

Student Question

I am still confused about this question mainly in regard to AC E.

Tutor Answer

Our job here is to explain how the two seemingly contradictory statements in the stimulus can be true at the same time. Specifically, what is a new piece of information that can explain how it's true that high cholesterol is correlated with cardiovascular disease but it's also true that everyone in this town has had high cholesterol for a long time yet don't have cardiovascular disease.

Our job is to choose an answer choice that helps clears things up. We need something that will solve the paradox or the mystery.

(D) does that for us by basically saying, well yes, the people in this town all have high cholesterol levels. And yes, usually that can be correlated with cardiovascular disease. But the people in this town are different. They all have this gene that prevents blockage to the heart. The blockage can cause cardiovascular disease. So the gene helps protect them from getting cardiovascular disease.

Notice how (D) is a completely new piece of information. But also notice how it still allows both statements in the stimulus to be true. With the addition of (D), the story in the stimulus feels more complete. It allows us that "aha!" moment to understand how those two statements makes sense.

The reason (E) doesn't help us out here is because we already know that the people in Limone have high cholesterol levels. And high cholesterol levels are correlated with cardiovascular disease. (E) is basically just coming along and saying "well the people might consume a lot of olive oil, and olive oil doesn't contribute to cardiovascular disease." But they still have high cholesterol!

So we are still left wondering why they don't have cardiovascular disease even though they have cholesterol.

Also, even if (E) were true, it's still possible that the residents of Limone also eat a ton of butter. All (E) says is that in some parts of Italy (we don't even know if that includes Limone), olive oil is a staple in the diet. Doesn't mean butter isn't also.

But even if (E) specified that this applied to the town of Limone, and even if It said that they do not eat butter, it still would not do much for us. Because again, maybe they don't have to worry about the additional threat of fats that cause cardiovascular disease, but they still have high cholesterol. And high cholesterol tends to be correlated with cardiovascular disease. So (E) still wouldn't explain why the people in Limone don't have it.

Student Question

I think much of my issue is with understanding the whole stimulus, but it is not necessarily grammar. I think it is a mix of processing issues and reading comprehension and translation issues and also not knowing what some words mean.

Tutor Answer

Good question! It's helpful to take it piece by piece, and to think about it in a way that makes more sense to you. When I read a stimulus, I'm pausing to think through what they are saying (and what they are not saying). Think of it as engaging with what the author is telling you. Here's how that looks for this one:

"Dogs are the descendants of domesticated wolves"

• Here, I'm just thinking okay so dogs were once wolves.

"It has recently been found that some breeds of dog are much more closely related genetically to wolves than to most other breeds of dog."

• Okay so we know dogs have come from wolves. But there are some that are more closely related to wolves than other dogs are. That makes sense.

"This shows that some dogs are descended from wolves that were domesticated much more recently than others."

• Okay hmm...does the fact that a dog is more closely genetically related to a wolf suggest that it was domesticated more recently?

• We don't know that yet. They haven't given us reason to believe that just because a husky, for example, might be more genetically similar to a wolf than it is to an english bulldog, that that tells us anything about when they were domesticated

• What if you are domesticated a long time ago but just haven't changed much domestically? A dog that looks just like a wolf and is genetically very similar could have been around for a very long time, and just hasn't changed much genetically since then.

Student Question:

Answer Choice Evaluation:

[A] looks promising because it does isolate the Natal grass as the only way to avoid predators, which would help improve this terrible argument because clearly now Natal grass would be a lot more important to the danger of the caterpillar if it’s the only shot at predator evasion, but why does failing to be highly unpalatable to predators guarantee extinction? I’m unhappy with this choice.

[B] looks promising because if it had the speed or agility, wouldn’t it be able to escape some predators, thus avoiding extinction? However, this answer choice is bad because even if it could escape SOME predators, that doesn’t mean it's safe.

[C] is nonsense.

[D] is bad because the location is random and irrelevant to the issue at hand. It doesn’t offer us anything beyond the stimulus. ​

[E] is too broad. I suppose there COULD be a tolerance to macrozamin, but even if one predator did, other predators might still be vulnerable.

My Issue:

I don’t know whether to choose A or B.

A makes sense as an answer because our chief concern seems to be that there could be OTHER things that could lead the caterpillar to being in danger of extinction, or maybe other things that prevent the caterpillar from becoming extinct… but I am upset that we are assuming that losing the ability to be unpalatable to predators means we are inherently in danger of extinction! Why isn’t this question about that?

Obviously, this is a lot. But basically, I am trying to figure out where I am going wrong in my approach to LR questions. Have I overtrained myself to demand too much of the correct answer choice? Am I misinterpreting the objective of the necessary assumption questions, and is there an easier reason not to choose B?

Tutor Answer:

For a Necessary Assumption question, we want to shift our thinking a little bit. When we are in the land of Strengthen or Sufficient Assumption questions, we are thinking about "what effect does this answer choice have on the conclusion?"

With NA, we are asking, "if the argument in the stimulus is true, does this answer choice absolutely have to be true?" Another way of thinking about it is finding an answer choice that gives us something the author is already assuming, based on what they are telling us.

In your evaluation of (A), you said "why does failing to be highly unpalatable to predators guarantee extinction?" This answer choice is not 100% proving our conclusion. It's not adding to the argument in the way a correct answer choice on a Strengthen question would. And it's not supposed to. So your instinct is right that our conclusion still does not feel completely proven. But that is not our job here. We aren't looking for something new. We are looking for something the author already assumes is true.

The other thing to remember is that an argument is usually going to have several necessary assumptions. Technically, some other necessary assumptions for this argument are that the leopard magpie moth isn't already extinct. Something like that is unlikely to be in the answer choices, but I use it as another example of something the author does have to agree with.

If I say: If I drink tea before bed, I will sleep better. I ran out of tea, so I won't sleep well. I conclude that I will get a C on my test tomorrow.

You could probably point out a couple of issues there. But one of the many necessary assumptions is that there is a test tomorrow. Another is that it's possible to get a C grade on the particular test.

So your frustration about the correct answer choice not being what you thought or hoped, makes sense. But that is common on an NA question. Sometimes it will be something we can easily spot and predict. Other times though, it will be something we didn't predict or would have been unlikely to. And that's just because there are often so many things that have to be true in order for an argument to work.

For (B), your initial evaluation is good. We could say that this strengthens the argument, but it isn't necessary. The author does not HAVE TO believe this in order for their argument to make sense. How can we be extra sure? Because even if this were not true, and the moth does have the speed to escape from some of its predators, there could still be tons of other predators that could catch it.

In other words, the author's argument can still follow logically even if they don't assume (B) as true. If that's the case, then we know the answer choice is not necessary.

To get better at these questions, I think it's helpful to think through WHY we can use the negation test, as opposed to just knowing how to use it. When we "negate" an answer choice, we are essentially just asking, what would happen if this answer choice were not true? Would the argument still work?

We ask that because we are looking for something that the author MUST assume is true, exactly as written. So if the argument can function as is even if the answer choice were not true, then we know it cannot be completely necessary.

Stepping outside of the LSAT world for a second, and just thinking about this as it is...It's kind of like if I was trying to make delicious chocolate chip cookies. Maybe using super fancy chocolate makes my cookies go from delicious to super delicious. But if I use regular chocolate, not fancy chocolate, the cookies are still delicious. Then it's safe for us to say that fancy chocolate is not absolutely necessary for delicious cookies. We know that because even if we didn't have it, the cookies are still delicious.

Student Question

I still dont quite get this, I chose D over E because I didn’t see how most apartments on upper floors are studio apartments I am unable to understand how we could logically infer that and I think the quantifiers kind of confused me. Can I please get a full breakdown of how D is wrong and why E is the right answer?

Tutor Answer

The premise says:

• Most apartments on the upper floors have scenic views.

The conclusion says:

• Therefore, there is at least one studio apartment with a scenic view.

So the missing link is: the premise talks about upper-floor apartments with scenic views, but the conclusion suddenly talks about studio apartments.

To make the conclusion follow, we need some way to connect studio apartments to the upper-floor apartments.

Most of the apartments on the upper floors are studio apartments.

Now we have two “most” statements about the same group: upper-floor apartments.

1. Most upper-floor apartments have scenic views.

2. Most upper-floor apartments are studio apartments.

If two “most” statements apply to the same group, you can infer that there is some overlap between them.

Why? Because “most” means more than half. If more than half of the upper-floor apartments have scenic views, and more than half of the upper-floor apartments are studios, those two subgroups must overlap at least a little.

So from those two statements, we can infer:

• Some upper-floor apartments are both studio apartments and have scenic views.

And that is exactly what the conclusion needs, that

there is at least one studio apartment with a scenic view.

Here's an example with numbers:

Suppose there are 5 upper-floor apartments.

• If most have scenic views, then at least 3 do.

• If most are studios, then at least 3 are studios.

But in a group of only 5 apartments, two different groups of 3 must overlap by at least 1.

So at least one apartment must be both:

• a studio, and

• scenic

(D) says:

• Most of the apartments with scenic views are on the upper floors of the building.

This doesn't give us the connection we need. Why not?

Because D tells us something about the set of scenic apartments. It says where most of them are located. But it says nothing at all about studio apartments.

So that won't work for us because the conclusion is about a studio apartment with a scenic view.

Even if D were true, it could still be the case that:

• most scenic apartments are on the upper floors, but

• none of those scenic apartments are studios.

So D does not guarantee any overlap between studios and scenic apartments. In other words, it doesn’t tell us if there are studio apartments in the building.

Student Question

Could you also argue that D did a sufficiency necessity flaw? That is why I picked this answer-because just because you fail the sufficient doesn’t mean that there aren’t other ways to still get the necessary.

Tutor Answer

Yes, that is another way of looking at this.

The counselor thinks that if we take away one possible cause of a particular outcome (non-acceptance), then that outcome will be avoided. But just because you negate the sufficient, does not mean the necessary won't still happen.

Student Question

I was wondering if my understanding of AC C is correct. I believe this AC strengthens the argument since ocean water and land heat by sunlight, warming Earth’s atmosphere, eliminating the possibility that it contributes to cooling the atmosphere. This, in turn, strengthens the idea of why snow and ice are more prominent in cooling the atmosphere. I am also confused on how AC D can act as a weakener.

Tutor Answer

After reading the argument as it's written, we are left wondering, okay but what if snow/ice-covered land has some other effect? Or what if the non-snow/ice covered land has some other way of cooling the planet even more than by reflecting sunlight back into space?

As you explained, (C) addresses this gap by saying that the non-snow/ice covered land actually worsens the warming atmosphere.

This adds new strong support to the claim that "the more surface covered by snow and ice, the cooler the atmosphere will become." It supports this because land NOT covered by snow and ice would not only take way from cooling, but it would also contribute to the warming.

I think we can think of (D) as not really doing anything for or argument, or we can think of it as a weakener.

(D) says the atmosphere gets most of its heat from sunlight passing through it.

It can be argued that (D) undermines the author’s reasoning. The argument assumes that what happens at the Earth’s surface matters for atmospheric temperature:

• sunlight absorbed by land/ocean → surface warms → atmosphere warms

But if the atmosphere instead gets most of its heat directly from sunlight passing through it, then the amount of sunlight reflected by the surface (snow vs. land/ocean) would matter much less.

In that case, increasing snow and ice coverage would not necessarily cool the atmosphere, because the atmosphere would already have absorbed most of the heat before the sunlight even reached the surface.

So rather than strengthening the argument, (D) could weaken it by suggesting that surface reflectivity is not the main driver of atmospheric temperature.

Student Question

I’m having trouble getting rid of answer choice B, can we tell from the stimulus if the last two sentences are from the researcher or the psychologist? I feel like either way works. I can see that we have no way of knowing if that’s the research’s main conclusion since we don’t know much about the research except what the psychologist told us. But is B wrong because by pointing out that the last sentence is the researcher’s main conclusion (if the last sentence belongs to the researcher and it is researcher’s main conclusion) have nothing to do with psychologist’s argument? We have to identify the “role” that it’s playing in the argument and saying it is some researcher’s conclusion doesn’t link us to the argument of the stimulus?

Tutor Answer

I agree with you that whether you think about the last sentence as being attributed to the Psychologist and/or the researches does not really matter. Because its role in the overall argument is the same.

You are correct in saying that we do not know whether that is the researchers' main conclusion.

Also, what you said at the end of your question is a good way of thinking about it. Even if (B) had said it's a conclusion of the researchers or something similar, the issue is that would still not describe what that statement is doing for the argument. Its role, regardless of who it is attributed to, is to support the overall main conclusion.

@Jake1776 I am glad you found it helpful! Always feel free to send us any questions you have.

Student Question

I’m having trouble understanding why D have to say “frequently”, since the stimulus says smokers rarely look at the package, isn’t “regularly” or anything that’s more than rarely enough to trigger the conclusion? Why does the author have to assume that smokers have to look at the package” frequently”? All other answers are wrong so I did picked D but I’m sure in other assumed questions, if the answer choice is too broad and too much it’s the wrong answer choice? Is it because the question stem is not asking what the author assumed but “the conclusion of the consumer's argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed” it’s not asking what the author have to assume but which of the following would get us to the conclusion and in this case, the answer choice can be broader or more general?

Tutor Answer

It sounds like most of your confusion on this question and answer choice is rooted in the fact that this is a sufficient assumption question, not a necessary assumption question. But what you said at the end is correct!

Let's refresh on what the difference is and what it means for us here.

A Necessary Assumption is something the author MUST agree with in order for their argument to work. There are usually tons of necessary assumptions for a given argument.

When approaching an NA question, we want to look for an answer that we can safely say the author must agree with. In general, the weaker the answer, the better. This is part of what you mentioned.

Typically, we want to be wary of answers that use words like all, any, each, every, only, most, and other strong words. That's because they restrict the words that follow them. And again, our job is to find something that has to be true, exactly as written. (But don’t automatically discount answer choices with theses words)

The question stem for an NA question will look something like this:

• Which one of the following is an assumption on which the scientist’s argument depends

• The conclusion relies on which one of the following assumptions?

By contrast, a Sufficient Assumption question asks us to identify an assumption that, if added to an argument, would completely prove the conclusion.

To solve these questions, we need to identify the argument’s main conclusion, look for any gaps in reasoning, and find the answer choice that fills those gaps completely. Because there is always a gap from the premises to the conclusion that can be identified, SA questions are some of the best ones to be fully predicting up front.

As you read each answer choice, ask yourself:

• Does this answer prove the main conclusion?

• Does this answer completely fix the problem(s) I identified with the argument?

Because we’re trying to prove the conclusion 100%, stronger language is usually better. It's also okay if the answer choice goes beyond what we need in order to prove it. We need to get across the finish line (proving the conclusion), but it's okay if we go even farther past the finish line, as long as we prove the conclusion.

Now let's look back at our stimulus:

• The consumer is trying to conclude that the new law won’t affect most regular smokers’ smoking habits.

• But the premise we have does not tell us what causes a law to have no effect on regular smokers’ habits.

• All we know is that most regular smokers rarely look at cigarette packaging when taking out a cigarette.

• But does failing to look at cigarette packaging when taking out a cigarette imply that the packaging can’t be effective in deterring people from smoking? The consumer hasn't made that connection. So it's our job to help them out.

To make the argument follow logically, we must establish that if regular smokers rarely look at cigarette packaging when taking out a cigarette, then the packaging won’t affect their smoking habits.

(D) sets the bar even higher! In other words, (D) establishes that in order for the new packaging to affect smoking habits of someone, that person must frequently look at the packaging when taking out cigarettes.

We know that most regular smokers don’t even frequently look at the packaging when taking out cigarettes. So according to (D), the new packaging definitely cannot affect the smoking habits of those people.