Hi, interested

Flaw: the argument assumes an "or" relationship unwarrantedly. From another question: There are 2 suspects for a burglary, A and B. A has an ironclad alibi, so it must be B. Well no, B could also have a great alibi, but more importantly it could be neither.

same boat, would love to join

I've come to use different sources for different needs that I think they're best at. I like The LSAT Trainer's LR strategy, 7sage has amazing LG explanations for foolproofing and also love it for taking PTs, LSAT Demon has been the closest one to getting me to even begin to understand how to improve at RC

i hope you're gonna be a lawyer

I took E and ran with it another way. I conflated "if some people conserve energy for reasons that are unrelated to cost savings" with "some people don't care about cost savings when going about their energy use". I thought that the flaw of the argument was the assumption that cost is even relevant to the majority of tenants-- maybe they just want their businesses/dwellings to be cool all the time to avoid musky furniture or something. I'm not sure why we assumed that cost is relevant to energy use :( of course from outside knowledge we know it is for a lot of people but isn't that an unwarranted assumption :(( #help

Cookie cutter flaw: concludes shaming has a net increase of total suffering just because many people get severe hardship from it. It’s possible that way more people, like 99% prosper from it.

Hi I'm interested

Hi I'm interested

This is straight up a sufficient assumption question, I guess now need to be open to the possibility of MSS being an SA.

Premise: IF discover service not adequately provided —> then common to boost funding

Conclusion: IF the least efficient ones —> then common to boost funding

To adequately conclude this, need to make least efficient ones --> discover service not adequately provided

It's exactly what A says, acting as a sufficient assumption. I guess this is compatible with the idea of "most strongly supported", because if premise 1 is true, and the conclusion is true, then i guess the sufficient assumption must also be true.

Two flaws at play here:

1. It’s not even really a contradiction because appealing to authority is different from relying uncritically on the opinions of authorities

2. This appears to be ad hominem in that this attack on his allegedly hypocritical character doesn’t really have to do with how good his work is.

I think the questions could have gone after either one so it's good to be aware of both. E does capture the second flaw.

My thought process during BR: Well, the people with high home ownership are probably the different people than the ones that are unemployed. Maybe home ownership somehow takes away jobs. I think B is right because it suggest jobs are being taken away.

What in this question indicates that the the people that own homes are also the unemployed ones?? #help

also same. they said they wanted a different vendor, they should've considered that the new vendor could be even worse than what they have. this one makes no sense to me, i feel like i'm missing something here

Understanding this question relied on understanding that the discrepancy is that: why are his ratings still high despite the ethics violations? In my head I didn’t think that that was a discrepancy at all because this is how things are in real life, but I guess they are not supposed to be? A. does explain it by saying that ethics violations have little to do with ratings, which is what we see in real life. I blame the 2016-2020 presidential term for my inability to solve this question. Thanks Trump

Hello, I'd love to join

Thank you, this is helpful. I thought the same thing, but the subtle wording “it is a fine specimen and is quite old as well.” does suggest that the age meets the condition, even though we don't know really if old age or young age is better for stamps. Will need to watch out for small hints like this more in the future

I took the flaw as confirmation bias occurring, perhaps the speaker (himself sus) was only going to edge/sus physicians. After all, what do you call the doctor who had the worst grades in the whole class? A doctor.

So I chose E because it seemed to be appealing to a crazy bias and the fact that credibility has not been established. I thought B was incorrect because there was potentially less confirmation bias, biology professors are more likely to be objective than "many people I have talked to" in E, and B did not mention any confirmation bias like "my suspicion is true".

Come to find out this was all incorrect and the flaw was actually that the argument was appealing to the inappropriate authority, kind of like how some arguments use an unrepresentative sample to come to a conclusion. Was my idea of the flaw viable or was I completely off base? #help

Perhaps reasons of image-- you may belong to one party that is popular in your social circle and you wouldn't want to be put on some potentially public list/or risk getting discovered for it, but you secretly support what the education party promotes. Or maybe joining the party requires a lot of paperwork, going to an office and spending many hours and you don't have time, but donating money is a quicker and less stressful thing to do. Either way, you don't want to assume that it is a smaller commitment to join the party than to donate money.

With this in mind, it is easier to come to the flaw that these two groups could potentially even be mutually exclusive, and the argument assumes they are 100% mutually inclusive.

I did this, I wished I had done it sooner, I wouldn't have to be taking an extra year right now to really get my goal score

Interested to join :smile:

Would love to join

Hi, I'd love to join

I'm in the same boat having scored 10 points below my highest practice test. It is very demoralizing, but I've finally accepted that I will take another year to study and apply next cycle with my best possible score

JY is hilarious thanks for making me laugh during this process

is this rill