A was super tricky for me because E seemed to have it the other way. Like the longer, the widely use... We only know that it is widely used than anywhere else (not the other way around). I thought A fixed that reversal. But I overlooked the word "great variety" which is just too broad.

This is an exemplar question to understand one of the 4 correlations - causation problem. There is a third variable that may be associated with the mentioned two variables to show mere association. By eliminating that possibility, you strengthen the argument.

Questions like this require you to understand exactly what the flaw is - if you don't and you are running out of time, you might self justify some ACs that don't make sense to you.

The blurb in the middle about how other districts don't have district patterns is a clear distraction. All we need to see that the author presumes that he CAN attract voters by doing whatever worked in the last 10 years. However, recognize that that is just a mere correlation.

Wow, a question that tests you on reading. Reminder to really understand the ACs.

Which one of the following principles must be assumed in order for the conclusion to be properly drawn? NECESSARY ASSUMPTION!!!

#help (Added by Admin)

Q26 / Q27 were alll about putting together the missing puzzles... clever tricks

note to self: there's a reason why they include certain info - scrutize!! all the ACs didn't make any sense... should have reviewed methane's relevance..

OMG.. methane. you got me

Got fooled by the "fewer" and "greater". Needed notice A,B,E are similar answer choices, and D - doesn't make sense ("moving more accurately?) It really leaves with C. But the drawing that graph during test time would have been difficult.

Honestly, the question is tricky because it makes you forget that what could be the non variable is "these witnesses". How much fewer and greater inaccuracies (comparatively) they make could be influenced by how much OTHERS commit the error... I did not think of this during the test.

But a quick attack at this question (at least a bare leniency on LSAT's part was to have easier ACs to eliminate)..

OMG analogy needs to be something different what the topic discusses!!!! remember

watching million episodes of true crime gave me an easy time w this one

Oh I think the point here is that the author cannot assume just because despite ghost stories, people still gained scientific understanding, we cannot assume ghost stories did not impede scientific understanding. You can still advance while being impeded by something..

Premise: fish recover normal hormone concentrations relatively quickly during shutdowns (?). Dioxin decomposes very slowly in the environment.

Conclusion: dioxin cannot cause abnormalities in fish

A. Ok fine. this attacks the premise.

B. It varies, so how does this affect? do we know anything about the environment in the stimulus to think dioxin will cause abnormalities?

C. Wow. This wrecks the premise that fish recovered ok during shutdowns. If normal river currents carry the dioxin far downstream (avoiding the fish), then we have no idea if dioxin has ever affected the fish. Clever.

D. Some fish does not matter

E. Its ok to not understand, doesn't weaken.

Premise: Children displaying impulsive behavior similar to adult thrill-seeking behavior are twice as likely as to have a gene variant as other children.

Conclusion: there is a causal relationship between this gene variant and an inclination toward thrill-seeking behavior.

Weaken: this one is too bluntly weak in it of itself...

A. not sure what to make of this. we are talking about children.

B. this kind of attacks the premise itself - if we can't distinguish correctly impulsive behavior, all falls apart.

C. why do i care how adults describe children

D. again .. adults dont matter

E. Trick answer choice - Ok, its correlated, so what? does this weaken the causal relationship? no, only if it said something like this correlated with something else that may explain thrill-seeking behavior.

Robin: when economy is down, many people lose jobs, so spending goes down, and more people lose jobs and economy worsens to the point price collapses. Then, people start spending and economy improves as a result.

Terry: if they have no jobs and no money, they can't increase spending regardless of price collapse.

Weaken Terry's argument. He only addresses the people without jobs. What about people with jobs?

C. does this

A,B,E introduce new concepts and don't attack the missing part of Terry's argument.

D. is something Terry acknowledges.

"Most closely conforms to the principles and above"

Ok - learn how to match conclusions and eliminate quickly.

Identify conclusion / argument:

Act of civil disobedience done out of self interest --> not justified

One's conscience requires one to do so --> justified.

A: justified. we need something about conscience. none .out.

B: not justified. we dont have as a premise done out of self interest. out.

C: justifed. we need conscience. none .out.

D: justified. her conscienced required. IN

E: not justified. no mention of doing out of self interest. out.

Identify conclusion:

"Judges should never mitigate punishment on the basis of motives"

Premise / support:

We cannot really reliably verify motives - they are conjectures, and can be distorted.

Bridge: If you can't verify 100%, then you should rely on that to mitigate punishments.

A: part of a legal system? No

B: Sure. This effectuates the result - lets err on the side of overly severe punishment.

C: Perceivable consequences of those actions - this is a new concept. We are talking about motives, not consequences..

D: enforced? we are not talking about enforcibility

E: disastrous consequences are not mentioned... out.

Identify the argument / conclusion:

The magazine wrote a misleading story on the reaction of local residents.

Premise: The surveys were 3 residents, all expressing outrage, and they were all friends. By publishing this, it intended to suggest that this was the majority opinion.

My thought: Unrepresentative sample yes. So, how can I further justify this argument? Well, lead the premise into the conclusion. Publishing a survey with an unrepresentative sample is to making a misleading statement.

A. Out

B. Evenly divided? We don't know that

C. Correct until "unless the opinions they express are widely held" - well, what if they were widely held, the curator could still object that publishing a story based on 3 people can be misleading.

D. Imply they must agree with each other? This is not mentioned. Out.

E. Captures both the nonrepresentative sample and the public opinion. Choose this over C.

First, identify the conclusion.

The conclusion is "it is not [inconsistent to support freedom of speech and also support legislation limiting the amount of violence in TV programs], so we should limit the amount of violence in TV programs.

Justification given: The harm that is done by violent TV programs is greater than the harm done by limiting freedom of speech as a result of this legislation.

What principles would be SUFFICIENT to draw such justification?

Something along the lines of... it is consistent to support freedom of speech and also support legislation limiting the amount of violence in TV programs if we can prevent greater harm by limiting amount of violence of TV programs.

A: "We should consider" is weak. The last part is attractive because of "consequences of not passing the legislation" justifies the logic of preventing greater harm. Leave it for now.

B: "The other interests" are referring to greater harm? I like that this mentions "consistency" which is part of the conclusion. Leave it.

C: What? Out.

D: Some harm? Too weak.

E. In some circumstances? Too weak.

Down to A and B. I think B is stronger than A because of the inclusion of "consistency" concept.

First, identify the conclusion.

The conclusion is "it is not [inconsistent to support freedom of speech and also support legislation limiting the amount of violence in TV programs

Honestly I chose this as well by process of elimination, but yes the wording here is a bit strong. I guess this is mitigated by "sometimes". One way to think about this is that we can feel the author feels negative towards imposing an existing construction of laws and procedures to treat aboriginal rights. like, oral tradition is fundamental to aborigianl people; to not consider this is to impose our conception of laws and what constitutes as fair criterion on to a very different society. This train of thought is kind of sprinkled everywhere in the passage - whic h suggests B is something author would most likely to assent.

The other ACs are just so crap and irrelevant.

D is just wrong because it says raising large amounts of dust from Earth's surface we do not care what happens on the surface... we need dust clouds entering the Earth's atmosphere

I don't know why i am getting confused... Can someone explain how JY writes the premise - "for whether one exercises vigorously or not depends in part on one's preexisting state of health?" into "less sick causes exercise"?

#help