@minjungpark517248 The wording of this was weird to me as well.

(E) is saying that rights outweigh monetary considerations

in the context of the passage I think that this means that "rights" == "right not to be coerced"

But if they have a right not to be coerced then it is in the corporations best interest to pursue their monetary considerations, purely, without regard to performance considerations on the part of the employee

But the passage is saying that rights necessitate monetary considerations.

The passage is saying that rights outweigh performance considerations

But if rights outweighed monetary considerations then performance considerations would be our only option left, no?

This is the line of reasoning I used to rule out the possibility of strengthening the author's argument.

If anything, I think it would weaken the argument by saying that "rights" demand performance consideration by outweighing monetary considerations. Which is the opposite of what the author is trying to say.

Hope this helps, could be wrong...plus you're probably already a lawyer...

Damn. Coercion is necessary. We already have the general rule, we don't need to redound upon it with an answer choice. This wouldn't strengthen because it wouldn't add anything new. Great explanation, completely missed that

The word eschew keeps messing me up

It’s not clear how this answer is analogous to glorifying one’s self, one’s history, or portraying events as inevitable.""

Yeah, beg to differ here. Imagine you're a doctor, you're an authority on something. In other words you glorify yourself. You develop a course of action, regardless of the effects of this action relative to other courses, this ends up being the best course of action. Why? Because you, in all your glory, created it.

This is a wild take. Where are we ever given textual evidence that Fidelio was more widely accepted later?

I just don't think its primary function was to show this.

This had already been shown in the previous paragraph.

This paragraph did a bit more and I was looking for an answer choice that reflected that.

This is a type of mistaken reversal. So the class of self disparagement contains people who compare, but there are other things outside of comparing, perhaps, that lead to self disparagement. Same logic can be applied to the class of dismissive people. Simply removing those parts of the classes don't rule out the possibility of still falling into those classes.

@BethTaylor But the scientists know that it's a different reaction.

We aren't assuming away the idea that the protein might cause a different reaction and lead to a misdiagnosis.

They're assuming that something else can't cause the exact same reaction and then cause a misdiagnosis.

Thanks for the comment so I could revisit it.

@Stas1973

If my level of confidence is high does that negatively affect how i perceive the economy? Positively? Does (A) explicitly give us a direction?

The stim does, though. Maybe the media critic's argument is flawed cuz it takes (A) for granted, even.

We want the overlooked possibility from the economist, though. Given (D) it ain't wrong to think that negative news reports can harm the economy because of the very studies the economist cited as a counter.

Thank you for pointing this out. A is not wrong for the reason I cited before. Good looks.

It enumerates AN argument that proceeds to be rebutted in the proceeding paragraph.

Pushback against A: "virtually every culture" and you use "didn't occur in medieval europe as a counterexample? C'mon...

It would be nice to know what "eschewing" meant...

Can't even really be superficially convincing if he doesn't even manage to explain something, right? At that point it's just unrealistic.

I think unconvincing would be a better word but unfortunately it doesn't map to "superficially convincing"

A )So this one is a bit iffy.

Harm comes about from actively bringing down a persons utility, right? So let's say person A could take substance X and let's say he had 100hp and substance X brought him down to 95.

Substance Y brought him to 105

Substance Z brought him to 100.

Let's say that substance Z is the herbal remedy in question.

The conclusion still stands even if he could be (potentially) having substance Y. Substance Z is not harming him.

Just because a possible benefit could result doesn't mean that it weakens the idea that another result definitely comes about.

We assume that the herbs specifically are safe to consume.

B) doesn't work because it's talking about effectiveness, which we know nothing about, only "safe to consume"

C) is a good answer because it's a good reason to believe that we shouldn't "always be allowed" to prescribe them.

D) some weird ad hominem attack

E) we already know that nothing has been proven about their effects, only that they are safe to consume. Tells us nothing new.

Bottom line is that choosing A is delusion.

The issue with this explanation is that the stimulus never says that their hourly wage is higher. You have to piece it together.

No one determines their hourly wage. A fare will always be a fare. But if they are getting more fares per hour, then they are making more money per hour.

The stim provides clear evidence that they work shorter hours, not longer ones.

One thing I struggled with in choosing A was the "nervous system" language. It just isn't really mentioned as an end for all this stuff. We get a lot about nerve cells, but nothing about the nervous system as a whole.

The solution to this is a bit of synthesis. If we are developing nerve cells, are we not contributing to the overarching system?

More formally, by focusing on the parts collectively we are addressing problems of the whole.

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.