This follows the form

P:Q

!P:R

Convert

!Q:!P:R

Contrapositive

!R:Q

A seems to be wrong because it doesn't give us a direction of causation. How does their level of confidence affect their perception? IS it a positive relationship? is it a negative relationship? This answer doesn't give us a vector.

D gives us the vector we need.

@Tolycurgo dude, excellent insight. Huge addition to the thought, thank you.

My only issue with this is that the language in the LSAT is supposed to be precise. If this was a MOST weaken question I would understand, but this is an "each except" question.

If the population of Hyenas doubles then this is perhaps an increase in predators or perhaps extra competition for food. So it's not the garbage dump harming, it's the hyenas...hold on a minute. Why am I arguing this point? This would strengthen the argument by increasing the work that the garbage dump could be doing to support their survival.

I argued myself into the right answer...

Why do we have to assume that it is exclusive to that bacterium? We already know that they only conclude this when they use TB bacterium. They're controlling for exclusivity already.

This is weird because you're looking for a enthymeme. But the idea is that if

Not easily distinguished --> useless

But this doesn't mean that if we make it easily distinguishable it will be not useless.

Therefore why do we need to assume that regulation makes it easy to distinguish? That fact doesn't necessarily make info more useful.

b

Wildlife populations that have been harmed by the excessive spraying of insecticides on croplands are likely to recover if the amount of insecticides sprayed on those croplands is reduced even slightly.

{this certainly helps the conclusion, assuming we don't also spray insecticides. I think this best answer}

{At a second glance. "reduced even slightly" is throwing me. If we use genetically engineered crops we technically are completely removing insecticide from this equation. So we want an answer that has nothing to do with reducing insecticide but with strengthening the idea that the thing that is replacing insecticide will help these populations recover. This answer leaves open the possibility that the reduction(in insecticide) might be good. BUT it leaves open that the production of these new genetically engineered crops might actually still be harmful to the populations and therefore not help them recover.}

This was my analysis for why B is wrong even though it seemed right in the moment.

@RitaFahek Awesome reply, simplified it for me. Thank you. One of those where I just started overthinking a ton...

I think my issue is that we can split hairs and say that we don't technically know that he was practicing modernism. Some experts fit that lense over him in hindsight and Cachin calls this into question in the stimulus.

That being said. Your first clause is golden. It never says anything about modern art. Simple and helpful, thank you.

So modernism may have developed far before modern art developed, no? How could he have helped modernism develop if this was the case?

I get that D is a could be true as well but C is just not at all strongly supported. It's missing the word art to narrow the class.

Hopefully this helps someone

If understanding a word always involves knowing its dictionary definition, then understanding a word requires understanding the words that occur in that definition. But clearly there are people—for example, all babies—who do not know the dictionary definitions of some of the words they utter.

all babies do not understand some of the words they utter

2.

Which one of the following statements follows logically from the statements above?

a

Some babies utter individual words that they do not understand.

{this has to be true only if we assume that understanding a word requires understanding all the defintions of the words they utter. Otherwise we can't say that they don't understand the words they utter. Even if we are told that they do not know them. It's not sufficient fo concluding that they don't understand even though it is the grounds of the contrapositive of the 2nd clause.}

b

Any number of people can understand some words without knowing their dictionary definitions.

c

If some words can be understood without knowing their dictionary definitions, then babies understand some words.

d

If it is possible to understand a word without knowing its dictionary definition, then it is possible to understand a word without having to understand any other word.

e

If some babies understand all the words they utter, then understanding a word does not always involve knowing its dictionary definition.

{this is true. We are given grounds that babies don't know the dictionary definition of the words they utter. That being said, if we assume that they understand the words they utter then they understand them and don't know the dictionary definitions, which is a contradiction of the rule in the 2nd clause, but this answer choice gives us this contradiction as a consequence of our assumption which follows roundly.}

======================================

My main issue with this is that D doesn't allow us to conclude that it is well founded, which is our overall conclusion. It just allows us to conclude that there is a real danger such a situation will arise.

Yes, we are given grounds to trigger the consequence that the situation will arise. But how can we further conclude that given that the danger is real then the public's fear is well founded.

I know this seems like a common sense leap but we aren't allowed to do that on the LSAT haha. As far as I'm concerned were stuck at there is a real danger without any way of concluding that the publics fear is well founded.

Someone help , plz!

@haena tyty this helps a lot.

@DaltonBarton My goodness what a comment. Just found it, thanks for pointing me towards it.

@naudin Fuck yes, what a logically consistent explanation. Huge fan of your work.

"expect it not to benefit someone other than oneself" is the misread negation here

"not expect it to benefit someone other than oneself" is the proper negation.

The proper negation leads us to answer A.

The improper one leads us to D but even with D we don't know that jarrett hopes not to gain prestige for others. SO even with the improper reading, D would be wrong.

@armondmnats402 tres bien chemin d'explanater 

How on earth can we assume that just because a nucleomorph is within a chlorarachniophyte, that the chlorachniophye emerged as a result of it. Absolutely wild reasoning, no reason to infer this. Unsupported.

Wouldn't assuming D make it so that it is necessarily the correct one? There wouldn't be any other possible explanation...

My issue is that land distribution can 100% be a social policy. IF I tell you that they are about to cut down the half the forests in yellowstone, are you objecting to that on social grounds? IF I tell you that a community who depends on some forest to live, is about to have that forest cut down: IS that a social issue?

I get social policy versus social issue but I just don't have the wherewithal to frame it in terms of policy, it can easily be done.

If you can't hold the belief about UFO's does that mean you can't hold the belief about extraterrestrials? Does this work as a conditional?

It's simply not synonymous. Informed lifestyle choices is a tertiary cause that potentially contributes to both the occurrence of high education levels and good health. D should read "assumes without justification that the same thing contributes to both causes."

Imagine the explanation they give for D, I'll copy paste it here: "The author overlooks the possibility that the correlation between good health and education is due to a thing that causes both good health and education (such wealth or genetics)."

now let's substitute with the actual terms in the stim

The author overlooks the possibility that the correlation between good health and education is due to a thing that causes both good health and education (informed lifestyle decisions).

I'm sorry but just simply assuming that the class of people with high education levels is congruent/synonymous with the class of people who make informed lifestyle decisions is ridiculously specious.

"one does so in the hope or expectation of benefiting someone other than oneself"

Negate

"one does not do so in the hope or expectation of benefiting someone other than oneself."

Now, does A satisfy that ground? I feel like "no one" precludes the possibility of satisfying those grounds which restated basically says he hoped to benefit only himself.