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

15 - AC E - why is this so wrong? I get D is also strong, but there is a line in the passage about children being the objects of unending moral instruction, whereby we simply can't just say (yeah why would you teach someone if you think they don't have the ability to learn?) doesn't come clearly..

Can someone answer why E needs to be definitely crossed out?

#help (Added by Admin)

I found this question to be exceptionally difficult. Normally, you would need to make sure that both sides talk about the same topic to find a disagreement between the two. That was key to finding the correct answer to this type of question. However, what makes this difficult is that Jenkins and Lurano emphasize two different aspects of the problem.

Jenkin: Research should be done in Jan / Feb because it is likely for snow to not melt in those months. It is important for us to not waste research money. There is a possibility snow can melt in later months.

Lurano: I DISAGREE. The later months will still likely to be cold. Additionally, there is less risk of safety to researches if we go later months.

The trickest part here I think is the word DISAGREE. Because there is so much in there that is not written literally on paper. What is Lurano disagreeing against? I think at the minimum, we have to understand that Lurano disagrees with Jenkin that research SHOULD BE done in Jan / Feb. In other words, Lurano thinks it is better to go in later months because 1) the snow will likely be there because it is still likely to be cold 2) there is less risk of safety to researchers.

Initially, I crossed out C and E on a skim because the funding part was only mentioned by Jenkin. However, after a detailed look, this is how I thought about the problem.

A. Very tricky indeed. Have to understand that Jenkin does not necessarily deny that there is a possibility of snow melting in later months. BEWARE.

B. Immediately out. Both disagree.

C. Jenkins kind of agrees but the word "WILL" is too strong. Also, a quick no because funding is not even mentioned for Lurano.

D. We don't know the relatively degree of temperature difference between earlier and later months. It's just that both acknowledge that there is a CHANCE of snow melting in later months.

E. This was really hard to accept because safety wasn't an issue for Jenkin, yet the correct answer comparies research funding considerations vs. risk of safety. We know Lurano disagrees with this statement. Jenkins, I am not so sure. She will say research funding is important, but I don't know what she will say to the risk to the researchers. I know that she wants to do this in Jan/Feb - which means there will be risk imposed to researchers. But I also know, she is not factoring risk of safety in her argument. I chose E because the other alternative C was just too wrong.

But E is definitely not a strong answer. Still looking for a more obvious explanation than just process of elimination... because process of elimination wasn't easy for this question.

Reminder though that not every answer choice for points of disagreement has that binary structure whereby even if the factors of arguments are not shared by both sides (funding and safety in this case), still look through the answer to make sure you arrive at the correct AC by process of elimination.

Unsure if I can get this one correct again under the time pressure. Learn how to skip.

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.

This is only tough because the argument really doesn't make a lot of sense, and the conclusion suddenly includes "tomorrow's job market"... This is where negation becomes super useful.. Remember to use it!

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

#help (Added by Admin)

Q21 - I was confused between D and E. E seemed like a good answer choice, given what the first paragraph says in line 14 - "suggested a massive opportunisitc bacterial infection of already weakened animals" Also, for the brevin theory, it was mentioned, line 39, the combined impact made the dolphins vulnerable to opportunistic bacterial infection, the ultimate cause of death". In line 49, PCB is mentioned to "impair functioning of the immune system and liver and to cause skin..." Combined together, I assumed the debilitation of the immune system through the bacterial infection was the generally accepted reason and the two theories just disputted which toxins made the immune system vulnerable.

I get D is repeated everywhere too - the toxins, but can someone help me understand clearly why E needs to ruled out? I understand PCB theory does not hinge on the "bacterial infection" I do get that both theories rely on the syntheic poluttants being the bully here..

Just want to make sure I do not overthink again.. or misinterpret

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

Q18 - AC E was attractive because it seemed to be supported by the lines in the paragraph - the author says, carrying the pigeons in darkness, rotated, etc., would have no effect. How should I interpret this?

#help (Added by Admin)

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

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

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.