Conclusion: There is an increase in 65 year olds. So many 65 year olds.

Support: The average age is increasing from 52-57.

If the average age is increasing, what can we conclude?

That more old people are coming in, or more young people are moving out.

But what if there were more younger people in the region and there is still an increase in average age. There really MUST be an increase in 65 year olds.

I'm interested!!!

Premise:

Somethings possess a characteristic. and should be classified as either: (good OR bad, right OR wrong).

Hmmm, this is actually wrong. because (plant + animals example) can possess two things. Therefore, we can classify them as two characteristics.

Conclusion: This idea that things should be classified as one thing should be abandoned. (Good or bad, right or wrong)

Anticipated answer:

Something that can possess two characteristics.

Should be abandoned.

B: Antianxiety medicine causes x and y, and therefore should be abandoned

Conclusion: The claims are untrue and harmful.

Why?

Premise: Survey data supporting the claim is flawed.

Loophole:

What about the people that weren't included in the data? What if I am inspired to act in a socially irresponsible way and I wasn't apart of the survey?

Conclusion: Joshi is letting campaign contributions influence his vote.

Why?

Premise: Because more property developers are financially supporting him.

Loophole: What if Joshi actually believes in what most property developers in the area believe in and that's why they're supporting him?

The flaw (loophole) is: what if the property developers supporting him is an effect of Joshi's beliefs?

C: Everyone SHOULD have access to more than one newspaper. Why? Because there are two sides to every story...

Based on this alone we can assume:

If we have two newspapers we will get both sides of a story: A BASIC REGULAR STORY. No newspaper covers both sides of a regular story.

Find the dangling variable or in other words a specific word that was introduced that did not appear in the conclusion: IMPORTANT.

The conclusion said literally nothing about important stories...

So are we talking about all stories or important stories?

Lets go further..

All sides of an important story should be covered→ no newspaper covers all sides.

Here is a sub conclusion:

If there were only one newspaper, important stories would not be adequately covered.

Loophole:

What if having access to more than one newspaper doesn't mean you'll get two sides of the important story?

In other words... what if one newspaper covers all sides of an important story.

The loophole is our flaw... the flaw is that the argument is confusing:

Are two newspapers good for covering both sides of an important story? or is the important story covered in one newspaper?

-

This was so hard lol

Job of the stimulus:

Why are the most common drugs priced lower than what are those who specialize in pricing are suggesting?

Choose every answer that makes this question make sense!

A. A price war... perfect this is why the drugs are priced lower!

B. Most common drugs tend to be less money than the less common drugs...

this doesn't explain why they are less than what the "experts" are suggesting

We know nothing about less common drugs from this stimulus.

C.Prices often fluctuate... perfect this is why the drugs are priced lower during the study!

D. Experts from the guidebook want everyone to make a profit so they calculate their prices to reflect that... this would explain the discrepancy because the experts are pricing the drugs at a higher $ for everyone to make a profit. so it's almost predictable that the prices are lower.

E. The suggested prices are for individual small quantities.... This explains why bulk sales are lower because they are in bulk.

small quantities ≠ bulk sales.

This question took me so long... I just kept staring at it. I got it right the first time and then I overthought it on BR.

But these explanations really help me:

My initial thought was:

Okay, they're both extremely active at night but more so the one without the cover. What would explain this??

Obviously they don't want to sleep during the day. What is causing them to not sleep more so than the ones with the cover... Predators!

I went to the answer choices and B was perfect.

I then overthought it:

If we know they both are active at night. but more so the ones without the cover... what could explain this discrepancy... that there are less of a population for the ones without the cover and that's why the percentage is higher for them.

Note to self: don't overthink. or be more creative than you have to... lol

This one was really hard for me but now that I'm reviewing I can see it from a broader perspective. Hopefully this helps!!

If we start with this:

Conclusion

We will determine if it is possible to have psychic powers.

If this is the only thing we see right now, we are asking ourselves: why? how do we know? where's the support?

It follows by:

If Selena's claim is true.

If this is the only thing we see right now, we are asking ourselves: why? how do we know? who's Selena and what claim is she talking about?

Claim:

Selena has psychic powers.

So if it's possible to have psychic powers... Selena has psychic powers.

The only way for us to know if it's possible to have psychic powers is through Selena!

If she's not a liar and what she's saying is 100% true then we know she must have them.

If we were to go one step further...

If Selena turns out to be a liar and doesn't have psychic powers then we know she doesn't have them... therefore, it would be impossible to have psychic powers.

BUT this is not what the author is asking of us. Do not get tripped up on this.

I chose D originally, which was represented of this explanation.

interested!!!

Interested!

I bought five dogs, three years ago.

I have not sold ANY of the of the five dogs, based on records.

However, I did sell two Labrador Retrievers last year.

Okay so, if I didn't sell my original five dogs and I sold two Labs last year, then I can conclude that those Labs were not apart of my original purchase three years ago.

So the argument relies on the assumption that I did not sell any of my original dogs

Let's negate this:

I did sell the dogs I purchased originally.

This would destroy the argument because then those 2 Labs could have been apart of my original purchase!

Hi! I'm around the city. Would love to connect!

Hi! Taking the November LSAT! Would love to connect as only early mornings work for me

Hi can I join? @