Anecdotally, if I am already tired then I tend to get sleepy after I drink caffeine.

Hi Briana,

Without more detail I can't speak to your specific situation, but here are some things that helped me. Generally speaking the strategy is first to identify unstated assumptions in the argument presented in the stimulus. Then, if the task is to weaken the argument, the correct answer choice will deny one of those assumptions. If the task is to strengthen the argument, the correct answer choice will grant one of those assumptions.

How do you practice? I recommend writing up an analysis of the argument in the stimulus, writing out the assumptions in the argument that you identify, writing out possible ways to strengthen/weaken the argument based on those assumptions, writing out an analysis of each answer choice, and then viewing the solution.

Kind of unrelated, but when starting out it can take a while to get comfortable with the idea that we are to assume the answer choices are true within the world of the question stimulus, no matter how outlandish or unreasonable they may seem in real life. All that matters is their logical consequences. Here's a dumb, but hopefully illustrative example:

Beatrice: Bertrand says that two times three is seven. However, two times three is not seven.

Which of the following if true, most supports Beatrice's argument?

(A) Yoda is pink. (B) Zero plus zero is zero (C) Shellfish are selfish (D) Two times three is 52,301

The answer is (D). It's an absurd statement in real life, but it's the only answer choice that supports Bertrand's argument if we pretend it's true in the world of the stimulus.

I thought the same at first, but no, it does not show that the Scottish seals (the seals with lower levels of pollutants in their blood) had a lower number of instances of weakened immune systems. Why not? Because a stronger Scottish immune system is not a necessary condition for the lower Scottish death rate, even with the assumption that the Scottish virus overwhelms weakened immune systems much more quickly than it does healthy ones. Why not? Because before the virus can act on the immune system, it must be given the opportunity. But maybe such opportunities are hard to come by. Perhaps the Scottish virus is only transmitted to the Scottish seal when the seal eats a type of fish rarely found in Scottish waters. Or maybe the virus has to enter the seal through an open wound and Scottish seals have exceptionally strong skin. Only under the assumption that the virus is able to infect a sufficient proportion of the Scottish seal population can we conclude that the lower Scottish death rate implies a lower proportion of weakened immune systems.

Wow, I just watched the video, and I had also missed that "not significantly less expensive" also includes the possibility that they are equal in price, and the possibility that the narrow boards are more expensive or even significantly more expensive. Good stuff.

(Xpost from CC problem set) I had a hard time with this, even after blind review. It didn’t hit me that one would need to purchase more narrow boards than wide boards to cover a given area, so if the boards are comparable in price, it would be more expensive to use narrow boards, especially over a large house. I kept thinking “so if narrow boards are around the same price as wide boards, and actually a bit cheaper, then they aren’t being used as a wealth-status symbol, so this actually weakens the argument.”

I guess the lesson is to always keep in mind whether a comparison is between unit rates or between totals and to consider the significance of the comparison in the context.

Or rather, such a person is not necessarily within the scope of the sociologist's argument, and so cannot serve as a counterexample.

E was tempting to me because I thought the government's willingness to provide certification suggested that the government is aware the program on its own may not be enough to persuade the fisherman to turn in their birds (and thus that additional action would need to be taken, like certification). Now, observe that this doesn't address the issue brought up in B. Fisherman could still turn in a small sample of the caught birds and receive certification. Moreover, potential certification may provide incentive for the entire industry to avoid participation in the program, since a company would look pretty bad if it didn't receive the certification.

But E being a bad idea is not sufficient reason to reject it. For example, an answer choice that read "The government released a statement saying that they strongly feel this program in and of itself will not lead to an accurate count, so it has decided to hire Bakersfield CA's best Ronald McDonald impersonator to brief congress on the issue," would be a good answer choice because it means the government is aware that more needs to be done, thus indicating that more needs to be done.

The issue is whether or not the answer choice indicates that the government program on its own will not suffice for an accurate count. The bottom line is that we don't know the basis for the government's willingness to offer the certificate. In particular, we don't know that they are willing to do it because they believe that not doing it will result in an inaccurate count.

I initially chose A after incorrectly reasoning that it provided a counterexample to the sociologist's claim. I reasoned as follows:

1) The scope of the sociologist's argument is all people who want to maximize their happiness.

2) A tells us that there exists at least one person who owns a pet and is happier than most people who do not own a pet.

3) Since such a person is already happier than most people without a pet, such a person should not consider not owning the pet.

4) Therefore, such a person is a counterexample to the sociologist's claim.

My error, I think, was that without more information, a person described by A is not actually a counterexample to the sociologist's claim because we are never told such a person wants to maximize their happiness. Without this info, such a person is outside the scope of the sociologist's claim, and so cannot serve as counterexample .

Yes, it means that amongst all work-related injury claims where an injury did in fact occur, most were filed on the same day that the injury occurred.

I disagree with the comments below that claim the correct answer choice must relate to the (cost of?) land. Insisting that it does will lead to the right answer, but for the wrong reason.

The argument in the stimulus is:

The price of land on the outskirts is cheaper than land in the center (premise).

The cost of land is a significant part of total construction cost (premise).

It will be cheaper to build the new post office on the outskirts of town than to build it in the center of town (conclusion).

The (cost of) land is the focus of the premises, but does that mean the correct answer choice must revolve around the (cost of) land? What if answer choice B had instead been "If the new post office is built on the outskirts of town, it must include 500-million-dollar gold toilets, but if built in the center of town, troughs made of salvaged steel will suffice"? This has nothing to do with the (cost of) land, but it weakens the argument by introducing a previously unconsidered expense factor, namely the cost of materials.

With the above in mind, here is an alternative look at the answer choices (it is out of order):

(B) Answer choice B is correct because it is the only choice that speaks of a definitive cost difference between the two options that works contrary to that argued for by the author; not because it deals with land. "[B]ut if sited near the present office it will not" is everything.

(C, D) These are wrong for at least three independent reasons. First, if we interpret the cost to build in a narrow sense, neither relates directly to the cost of building, so they are irrelevant. Second, if we instead interpret the cost of building in a broader sense and include associated costs, then these are still wrong because they do not say that these activities cost additinal money. Finally, and most fundamentally, they say nothing about whether the situation would be different if the post office were to be built in the center of town. Perhaps the bus line has to expand anyways to provide access to the center of town, and perhaps po box demand is declining already. These are like the example TY gave in his lesson on causation where he makes the statement "The sun will rise tomrrow If I rise at 4am, go the top of the roof, do a dance and slaughter a chicken." (This is also a reason that E is wrong...who says night/weekend workers wouldn't have to be hired for the outskirts of town for the same reasons?)

(A) There are at least two things wrong with A. First, a demanding code does not necessarily mean a more expensive code. But even if it did, the code is city-wide, so any economic consequences would be felt regardless of site location within the city.

(E) This says nothing about the additional costs and so it is irrelevant. But even if we assume night/weekend labor is more expensive than day/weekday labor (which we shouldn't), this would only strengthen the argument.

It's working for me now. Thanks!

I can't see the questions or the answers, and can't access the "notes" function in the problem sets in accompany the core curriculum.

Added: I experience this in Safari and in Firefox.

Thank you 7sage, I am grateful for the work you do.

See LSATSurvivor's reply to PhilipToronto below.