To get this question correct, the first sentence is paramount. "Advertising agencies are often WRONGLY criticized fro CAUSING people to desire." In essence, the author is defending these advertising agencies from being accused of engendering desires, when in reality, they are taking advantage of a desire that is already within the consumer and thus EXPLOITING it. I missed this question simply due not paying attention to the first sentence. Tough question to get at the end of the exam with minutes left.

"you should not tell me that" as in don't say anything or "you should not tell me that" as in, you should be honest with me? That was very ambiguous.

@EdwardGz Because if the money supply stays stable (remains relatively unchanged) but the goods and services grow, then these two factors become increasingly disproportionate hence - deflation. The economist said gold helps the money supply stay stable but doesn't mention anything about goods and services staying stable and then he concludes his country is unlikely to experience significant inflation or deflation. So the argument DEPENDS on the goods and services being unlikely to grow markedly.

@jlj22 So Mayor Walker is assumed to be guilty of ethics violations so the implicit logic is, his approval rating of success has gone down because of that. However, 52% of the poll STILL views him as good/excellent and is not a lower number than before. But what about the other 48% of residents? Some might not have an opinion, some might believe he is guilty of violations, some might believe something different outside of everything already mentioned - we don't know. Answer A provides mathematical confirmation, that the other 48% ish amount of people (almost half that voted) ALREADY believed he was performing "poorly" prior to the accusations. So answer A, almost like a sufficient assumption question, guarantees and explains the part of the stimulus "which is no lower than it as before anyone accused him of ethics violations."

@SirHarvey EXACTLY! Large profits does not equate to being rich. You can make large profits but also not be rich. These things CAN be exclusive. So is the LSAT assuming that large profits is synonymous with being rich?

A is definitely the trap answer. Nice try.

How is this a 5 star question? I found this super easy. I thought it was going to be a 1-2 star question.

@dshuster2018 If it helps, answer choice A is is tough because the premises and the conclusion are opposite of the question stem.

These comments are flooded with "student questions" and "tutor answers" and it really takes up precious real estate on this discussion panel. We go to the discussion thread to look for relatable experiences rather than "cookie cutter" or AI driven responses. It takes away the authenticity of the discussion threads and discourages engagement.

@atlaspoocd You're WAY overthinking this. The flaw is the sample size is too small to support the stimulus' conclusion. Hell, it even says in the stimulus it has a small sample size. The answer was presented to you in an abstract way which is what really threw you off. I honestly read your comment twice and still couldn't ascertain what you were on about.

@kaleighh.04 How is E at all relevant to the conclusion though? AC E is completely irrelevant to the central argument. If you do the negation test on AC E, it doesn't break the argument whatsoever. Now do the negation test on AC A, and it does cause the argument to collapse. You were one step off from getting this right - throw in the negation test when you're stuck between two answers. Happy hunting.

What a crap question - I get why it's D but the answer is terribly worded. Basically, our neighbor’s remodeling, construction, noise, pollution, or other alterations can interfere with the value or use of your property. So zoning restrictions can protect property rights overall by stopping one owner from damaging or infringing on other owners’ rights.

@aidanfoley2 No because that is not an assumption. The stimulus literally tells you the addition of spreads can raise it to doughnut ranges. If the stimulus explicitly says this, it is not an assumption. NA assumption answers are NOT explicit said in the stimulus.

@JoyelleBaek That's easy - go ahead and use the negation technique on AC D. "The typical doughnut eater DOES add to doughnuts any substance that increase the total caloric intake." That would break the conclusion. The LSAT is known for being "out there" with some of the necessary assumption answers but that's why the negation strategy can be useful for abstract NA questions such as this.

This was my non-mechanical approach to getting this question right, albeit, it did take me almost 4 minutes to get it. The correct chain is: able to communicate → at least as intelligent as humans, so by contrapositive, not at least as intelligent → unable to communicate. Then answer choice D supplies the missing bridge: unable to communicate → the only way to detect the being is to send a spacecraft. But the stimulus says we cannot send spacecraft outside the solar system in the near future. Therefore, if the beings are not at least as intelligent as humans, we cannot communicate with them and cannot use the only alternative detection method, so we cannot determine that they exist in the near future. That is exactly what the conclusion says.

@raynap18 The stimulus says "most children under the age of 6" which you can infer that there are "some" children that defy this generality thus making your response invalid.

This is definitely tougher than 3 stars or am I tripping?

I initially chose AC E but on the BR, quickly realized how massively wrong that choice was. Marsha didn't even mention Elena's conclusion but did indirectly indicate that Elena's support could be interpreted in other ways that would go against her conclusion. It's one of those easy questions that become even more obvious in hindsight.

Advice to myself - slow down and read carefully. This is tricky if you glossed over the stimulus - the advice is for future prospects of a company in an interview but the latter part of the stimulus reverses the direction of the advice from the perspective of the employees perceiving their managers hence AC A as correct.

The key to getting this question correct is simply knowing WTF they're quizzing you on. Once you can figure that out, AC D is pretty clear as the winner.

@nonasunny I mean it was in all caps...

@Alyssam No.

@shippiinguyen You didn't explain why B is correct though, at all. All you did was give a bare bone definition of what the correct answer a SA question needs to do which is- guarantee the conclusion. You failed to explain how AC B ties to the conclusion to make it correct.

@MacyHolcomb It's the false dichotomy flaw. In other words, "the result can be explained by either this or that" but didn't consider ANOTHER possibility exists. Search "False Dichotomy Flaw LSAT" and see what you can find. These questions aren't common but when they do show up, they are easy to spot such as this one.

The conclusion conflates a legal obligation with any type of obligation but the dead giveaway for me was "one is required to fullfill." That immediately triggered the necessary condition which corresponded to AC D.