@ said:

Ok, well, those are my two cents.

I need the full dollar in this case. But thanks anyway.

@ said:

I think the meat preservation method (the how) might just be the author letting their imagination run a little too wild and giving us details no one asked for.

and you edited in the HOW to this comment, but that's the point. The conclusion is about HOW they preserved their meats, not WHY they used lichen and grass instead of wood fires.

And the way the archaeologist seems to come to that conclusion is by assuming that since lichen and grass were found in the fireplaces, and they produce more smoke than heat or light, then that's how Neanderthals preserved their food. That they burned lichen and grass for smoke seems to be a given here because even if they didn't burn it for the smoke directly, that doesn't mean they didn't use the smoke for meat preservation, which is what the argument is trying to prove.

I am 1000% open to correction, but y'all keep telling me why B is right, but now how my thinking about this question is wrong.

@ said:

Right, so the point is to find an answer choice that makes it a little harder to arrive at the conclusion, right? So think about it like this, if answer B is true, then doesn’t it make it the conclusion seem more invalid/unsupported?

No it doesn't. because if the conclusion is that they used smoke for meat preservation, then A does that. If B is true, then even if there were no other materials for them to use for heat and light, that doesn't weaken the argument that they used smoke for meat preservation.

A would weaken that argument by suggesting they actually did use heat as well to preserve their meats, not just smoke.

@ said:

I think the meat preservation might just be the author letting their imagination run a little too wild.

Ok, but how wild the archaeologist's imagination is running seems irrelevant given the nature of this test because that statement is the conclusion of the argument.

@ said:

i don’t think answer B is saying that Neanderthals used Lichen and grass out of necessity to barbecue, in fact, I don’t think you should only focus on the smoking meat, that part is the archaeologist’s conclusion, which is based on his assessment that (premise) lichen and grass don’t provide as much warmth and light as burning wood, which must mean they were burning it for other reasons, such as…low-heat BBQ. But where the weakening power of B comes in, is by pointing out, hey it’s not so much they weren’t burning wood or something that provides more heat and light, it’s that there weren’t anything else around that can out-shine and out-warm our cave folks than lichen and grass

Yea.. they were burning it for the smoke. And the conclusion says they used smoke to preserve their meat. So how are y'all jumping from HOW they preserved their meat to WHAT they used lichen and grass for as the conclusion????

That jump makes no sense to me.

@ said:

Say I see a person riding a bicycle. Say I conclude the person is probably riding the bicycle for exercise.

(B) Then you weaken my argument by saying that the only means of transportation that person has is that bicycle. Thus I can't neatly conclude it is probably for exercise.

(A) Then you strengthen my argument by saying that you saw that person driving their car to get to their job earlier that day.

Ok...

but let's say the argument is "Billy probably exercises by biking.." and the evidence is "there is a bike in Billy's exercise room. Bikes are great for cardio, but not nearly as great for transportation as cars."

How are you concluding that the assumption here is that the only reason Billy rides his bike is for exercise, and NOT that biking is the only form of exercise that Billy does???? That's not what the argument is.

@ said:

The main issue I see with C is that it is talking about something different than the recommendation in the stimulus. The stimulus says that the public health campaign encouraged people to take precautions such as "avoiding public places when they experience influenza symptoms," while C talks about there being "fewer large gatherings than usual during the six-month period." Avoiding public places and partaking in fewer large gatherings are two separate things. Somebody might have engaged in fewer large gatherings over the six months, but not avoided public places meaning C's evidence doesn't strengthen the argument. In fact, C's evidence could be irrelevant really. Let me know if this makes sense!

Hi Annabell!

Yes that does make sense, thank you! I seem to be struggling with catching the nuances in meaning between the stimulus and the answer choices.

I think that's what I missed on A as well. I guess if food borne illnesses were also high before the 6 month campaign and then they decreased during the campaign, then yes, obviously people were washing their hands more.

I didn't catch the "than usual" in answer choice A. I overlooked it! Careless mistake on my part!

Thank you again!

@ said:

I struggled with this for a long time and still do. I've certainly not "mastered" this test, but I'll share what helped me break from 150s to 160s. Before, when I'd go over explanations by JY, PowerScore, LSATHacks, etc, I'd often react "how'd they get that from the stimulus?"

That's because, while I was good at identifying which sentences contained the conclusion and premises, I wasn't picking up on the key features of the argument. So the transition was going from "this sentence is the conclusion; these are the premises," for example, to:

The premises make a comparison between X and Y

The premises are descriptive, but the conclusion makes a prescriptive claim

The conclusion introduces a completely new concept that's not mentioned in the premises

Pointing out these things helps me anticipate what needs to be in the correct answer.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM STRUGGLING WITH!!!

Whenever I read the explanations I'm like "HOW DID THEY GET ALL OF THAT FROM THESE SENTENCES???"

I can pick out the argument, but I suck at analyzing it! I'll sit here for 40 minutes trying to make sense of what I just read, or going back and forth from the stimulus to the answer choices, but all the answers sound right and wrong lol.

And I can analyze the heck out of stuff in the real world! I'm a psychology major, all we did was analyze everything! but every time I pull out my LSAT prep, my analytical skills decide to go on sabbatical!

Thank you SOO much!

@ Thank you for the encouragement! I've been studying off an on for a few months and it does feel like I'm having to relearn the same lessons lol.

Now, as for the relationship between premises and conclusions, what exactly do you have trouble understanding? Is it certain premises where you just don't understand what they're saying? Or do you not understand how the author intends for the premise to help their conclusion?

I think it's that I don't understand why the author is saying what they are saying in support of the argument. So for example, in PrepTest 79, Sec 1, number 10 is a strengthen question that I got wrong. A, B, and E were the obviously wrong answers to me. I got stuck between C and D and chose D, but C is the correct answer. When I looked over the explanation, it makes total sense that D is wrong because, even though it mentions atmospheric heating, it doesn't directly address the conclusion that more and snow and ice will make the atmosphere cooler.

As I read the explanation, I realized that I didn't make the connection between the conclusion and why ocean water and land were mentioned. I didn't pick up on the fact that the author is comparing ice and snow to land and ocean water, so I crossed out C because I thought "well the argument doesn't say anything about ocean water and land heating the atmosphere. It just says that more ice and snow will reflect more sunlight back into space, making the atmosphere cooler."

I was more focused on the atmosphere than what the comparison between snow and ice and ocean water and land meant for the atmosphere lol.

I've done 5 strengthen questions and have gotten 1 right. the others I got wrong for the exact same reason. One of them I actually did choose the right answer, which was A, but then I overthought it because I got there by process of elimination, not because I fully understood the connection lol. That one is PrepTest 78, section 3, number 21. I scratched out A and chose D, even though I knew why D was wrong. How much iron is absorbed by the body is irrelevant to the argument lol.

Not making the connection is causing me to have trouble paraphrasing or predicting what the right answer is on strengthen questions because I don't know what I'm supposed to be supporting.

I hope that makes sense.

from Imgflip Meme Generator

from Imgflip Meme Generator

from Imgflip Meme Generator

I couldn't find the instructions on how to imbed, so I just copied the code from imgflip