this is how I thought about it:

The stimulus tells us to calculate gravitational force, one needs the know the mass and the distance. We are then told that these factors are SEPARATE from the idea of what the bodies are made of. Then the conclusion says that that's why we don't need to know the structure and the constitutions of the sun and the planets in order to calculate their orbits.

This must then mean that we don't need all these extra because mass and distance are enough for the calculation and the extra factors are the things that tell us what the bodies are made of but we don't need to know that.

gravitational force --> mass and distance

MISSING: calculate orbits --> gravitational force

----------------------------------------------------------------------

calculate --> /theory of structure and constitution of sun and planets

increase in adrenaline level corr better memory in frightening situations.

our job is to attack this support.

B) cannot weaken because it talks about a different relationship - the relationship between satisfaction of desires and most likely to be remembered details

we are trying to find a weakener that attacks the supports of level of adrenaline and better memory in fear

C) is correct because it gives another reason why adrenaline causes better memory. it's not because of fear but due to the situation that's highly pleasurable. In highly pleasurable situations, levels of adrenaline also increase and as it increases, the person experiencing the highly pleasurable situation is having a better memory remembering the details of the event.

would this be a right way to interpret??

This stimulus was confusing at first but upon reading it more closely I was able to better understand it.

It was also helpful or remind myself, upon reading the question stem, what I was looking for. For inf/MBT questions, sometimes the structure of the argument isn't a classic P to MC. Sometimes it's just a list of facts. In order to understand this list of facts, we need to be able to make it more concrete and less abstract. So think of examples to plug in as you read terms you may be unfamiliar with. Be on the lookout for conditionals, and once you notice conditionals, begin diagramming them. At last, chain up the conditionals and then make the inference.

Stimulus Breakdown:

First, the author begins with introducing the term "phonemic awareness". The comma after this term is its definition. She tells us that Phonemic Awareness means: "the knowledge that spoken language can be broken into component sounds, is essential for learning to read an alphabetic language." this is ESSENTIAL, which implies NECESSARY CONDITION.

Moving on to the next sentence, the Psychologist says that it is also NEEDED (NECESSARY) for one to understand "how sounds are symbolically represented by means of letters" in order to read an alphabetic language. Now think of an example for this abstract term - the English language.

• so the Psychologist is saying that in order to learn English, it is required for one to have phonemic awareness AND to understand how sounds are represented by letters.

Then, the Psychologist introduces another method : whole - language method. Definition: emphasizes the ways words sound. This method itself is sufficient for MANY ("some" indicator) children to learn to read English.

Diagram:

Now diagram and chain all the conditionals together and let's make an inference. Ask yourself, what MUST BE TRUE given the facts in the stimulus?

we know that it is ESSENTIAL for one learning English to 1) have phonemic awareness and 2) know how words are represented by letters.

conditional #1: alphabetic language --> 1) + 2)

We also know that some children who use whole lang. method learn English as well.

conditional #2: whole lang method <--s--> alphabetic language

we notice that the sufficient condition "alphabetic language" in conditional #1 is the same as the necessary condition in conditional #2. Therefore, we can chain them together.

conditoinal #1: A--> B + C

conditional #2: D some A

D some A --> B + C

in words:

whole lang. method <--s--> alphabetic language --> have phonemic awareness + how words are represented by letters.

Answer:

answer choice (D) perfectly lays out this chained condition. therefore it MBT since it's supported fully by the stimulus.

(D) Some children who are taught by the whole-language method are not prevented from learning how sounds are represented by means of letters.

conditional: whole lang method some alphabetic language --> understand how words are represented by letters.

/harmful and true --> /prevent

contrapositive: prevent --> harmful and /true.

Conclusion: govt was wrong in preventing. this triggers the contrapositive which tells us that if prevented from expressing, Calista's belief was thought as harmful and not true. However, since the author concludes that gov't prevention is WRONG, meaning that the gov't SHOULD NOT have prevented Calista, then we are looking for an answer choice that confirms that sufficient conditions in the conditional in order to conclude at /prevent.

B) tells us that

Several studies have found evidence that use of cell phones has been partially responsible for the increase in cancer rates over the last two decades, and it would benefit people to know this.

benefit people = /harmful (this sufficient condition has been triggered)

evidence found = true belief (this the second sufficient condition being triggered)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

c: /prevent.

I assumed that the interventions and techniques are common aspects

so the Herbs themselves being prescribed to a patient won't actually harm the patient. BUT it does have an opportunity cost of letting the patients use medicine that'll actually cure their illnesses.

In order to strengthen the support from the premise to the conclusion, we need to make sure that the random assignment was in fact performed by the researcher. The sample size is big enough and we know that age is being controlled. However, to assume that exercise -causes-> longer life span/less likely death can be supported only if we confirm that this study was random assignment and not self-selection with individuals who already studied. To put simply, the researchers randomly assigned the randomly selected participants to two different categories, one being exercising and the other being non-exercising. and that's why the researchers were able to conclude that the participants in exercising group was less likely to die, because a part of the study has proven that.

One thing that really helped me understand this question was applying the Rule and Exception Framework.

The stimulus tells us at the end that "the tenant must pay for damage that was not recorded on the preexisting damage list, except any damage caused by a circumstance beyond the tenant's control.

Rule: /L→P

Exception: /C

Answer (B) is describing a situation where the damage appeared beyond the control of the tenant. In this case the rule is silent since you're within the exception, which means the tenant does not have to pay for the damage.

Another way to think about this is using the *Joint Sufficient Condition Framework

*

Change the "except" to "unless"

Apply ground 3 (negate, sufficient) to the statement, and use Group 1 translation (sufficient)

/L→P (if not listed on preexisiting damage list then tenant is required to pay)

C → (/L→P)

Extract the inside sufficient condition

C and /L →P

If the damage is within the tenant's control AND not listed on the preexisting damage list, then the tenant must pay for the damage.

The question stems asks for a situation where the tenant is NOT required to pay for the damage.

(B) A crack in a window caused by a factor beyond the tenant’s control and not recorded on the preexisting damage list

This is the correct answer because (B) describes a situation where the tenant is in fact not in control of the damage /C and the damage was not recorded /L.

Here, remember the conjunction for "and"

We have 2 sufficient conditions that need to be met according to the given rule.

"If a conjunction occurs within the sufficient condition, both elements together guarantee the necessary condition. Neither alone is independently sufficient."

So the tenant does not have to pay for the damage because one of the sufficient conditions is not met.

this is too much lmao

words like "detainee" requires two party transaction. This means that there is party 1: the person being detained (detainee) and party 2: the person detaining the detained (police officer). Another example given by the stimulus would be employee: one party is being employed (employee) and the 2nd party is the employer (the one who is performing the action of employing). Having understood how the principle applies to the examples, you would then realize that absentee doesn't fall into the set of -ee words described by the beginning of the stimulus. It does not require a two party transaction. This is also why it's resolved as being a counterexample (because it no longer falls into the subset of -ee words that require 2-party transaction).

author's argument is that the degree to which an artwork has an emotional impact differs wildly form person to person. And because it's different from person to person, they conclude that a connoisseur's assessment cannot be given credence. But why can't the connoisseur's assessment be given credence? Just because people have diff opinions? What if the connoisseur's have opinions that are all aligned with each other since they're the ones who are determining the emotional impact of the artwork.

In this case, people and connoisseurs are in different sets. Just because one thing is true for one set (people's opinions differ on a case by case basis), there is the possibility that it doesn't apply to the other set (connoisseurs who may not differ on their beliefs about emotional impact. And that's why C is the correct answer choice.

we need policies that support us to use natural resources and make wealth necessary to bring about these improvements. that's why (A) is correct. we need to sustain our wealth and we do so through the use of our natural resources.

loving this new feature #feedback

I had a really hard time getting the NA questions as well but I think examples without convoluted language can help people understand the concept a little better. (I also try to find different explanations from other lsat sources for me to understand different perspectives).

Example:

All students have backpacks.

Thus, all students go to school.

What is the assumption here?

The assumption is that all those who wear backpacks go to school. Therefore, students (who have backpacks) go to school.

If it is not the case (negation) that the Anyone who wear backpacks go to school, then the argument falls apart. It is no longer true that the premise supports the conclusion.

Example 2:

Any job that makes the people who perform it work past office hours should be paid for overtime.

Thus, doctors should be paid for overtime.

What is the assumption here?

If we accept everything said in the stimulus to be true, we would say that the assumption is that doctors fall into the category of working past office hours (and that's why they should be paid for overtime).

If you negate the this assumption, then the premise would no longer support the conclusion and the argument would fall apart. For instance, if it is not the fact that doctors work past office hours, then the conclusion would no longer be supported.

I hope that helps a little bit. If there's anything I said that's wrong or unclear please feel free to help me make it better. :)

Got this question wrong because I did not understand the conclusion properly. I thought that it wasn't talking about in general field of science. and so I didn't think this was a generalization question until I saw the explanation vid :( This is so confusing

felt that

This questions was really confusing to me at first but I figured it out in the end when I realized that there are three different sets that we're looking at: 1) homo sapiens ancestors, 2) neanderthals and 3) contemporary humans.

This is how I understood the stimulus:

The context tells us that it was believed that the prehistoric Homo sapiens ancestors OF contemporary humans interbred with Neanderthals but the conclusion denies this belief. Why?? Because the premise tells us that the contemporary humans' DNA is significantly different from that of the Neanderthals. Here, it is important to note that there is a DIFFERENCE between the Homo sapiens ancestors (of contemporary humans) mentioned in the beginning of the stimulus and the contemporary humans mentioned in the last sentence of the premise that gave direct support to the conclusion. Therefore, we needed to find a fact to confirm that the Homo sapiens ancestors ALSO carried DNA that was as different from the Neanderthals as the contemporary humans did, and that's why (c) is the correct answer.