I read this the same way...I'm so confused on how A is incorrect

#help. Doesn't answer D, if negated, destroy the argument? "No substances of medicinal value contained in rain forest plant species will eventually be discovered if those species are studied." Essentially saying that even if the species are studied, we won't get medicinal value from them. Which basically renders the argument null bc if we don't have the rain forests, who cares because the plants wouldn't have any medicinal value anyways?

I'm not sure if I'm negating the answer wrong or if I'm just misunderstanding it. But I definitely am lost. #help

https://lsathacks.com/explanations/lsat-preptest-62/logical-reasoning-1/q-20/ Check out LSATHacks explanation, I found it super helpful. This is a great resource

The argument is as follows:

P: The supervisors presence affects every driver

C: So, the drivers who perform the best with a supervisor are the best drivers without the supervisors.

The argument relies on a key assumption that the supervisors impact each driver EQUALLY. Lets say we have two bus drivers, Max and Joe who drive equally as well (with a rating of A+). With the supervisor present, Max feels annoyed at the presence of the supervisor, but still is able to drive like he normally does, so he gets an A+ (like normal). Now lets say that the supervisor makes Joe very nervous, and he blows a stop sign and is given a C- by the supervisor. Does this scenario support the claim that the drivers who perform the best with the supervisors are the best without the supervisor? NO, because two equally good drivers experience varying levels of impact from the presence of the supervisor. If answer D was NOT TRUE, then the argument falls apart. If we say that each driver is NOT impacted equally, then we see how the Max/Joe situation proves the conclusion false.

For answer C, lets look at Joe and Max again. They both drive at an A+ level, but with the supervisor, they are both bumped down to A-. This isn't absolutely necessary for the conclusion to be true. What is the presence of a supervisor makes their performance dramatically worse, and they get bumped down to a D? This still doesn't make the conclusion absolutely certain.

I hope this helps!

Can someone please explain the reason why we can contrapose one of the rules but not the other? This is really not clicking for me...I need it in more digestible terms lol

Confused on E. Wouldn't the fact that short term methods use more skills vs long term methods move the experiment further away from the "ideal experiment?" In this case, the time isn't the reason for the success, its the fact that different techniques are being employed.... making the argument weaker. What am I missing? #help

The stimulus: The speed limit used to be 70 MPH, but we reduced it to 50 MPH. After the speed limit was reduced, there was less traffic.

You would think that lowering the speed limit would cause more traffic, right? People travelling slower would overall make traffic slower. But for some reason, we observed the opposite -- traffic decreased.

Now our job is to figure out why. Why might traffic decrease even though people are driving slower. Answer C provides a potential explanation. When the speed limit was 70 MPH (before the change), people were flying down the freeway and driving like maniacs, causing accidents. These accidents caused long delays that jammed up traffic. I'm sure you've experienced it. An accident can add so much time onto traffic. But now that the speed limit is 50 MPH, people are driving slower (assumedly more carefully) and thus accidents are reduced. So we reduce the risk of having these accidents that cause lengthy delays and boom, traffic is reduced.

The accident poses as an explanation for the reduced traffic, it doesn't need to be explicitly stated in the stimulus

Need every answer broken down like this lol. Makes it so much easier to understand bro

I did the same exact thing! I don't understand the explanation provided at all

Is it because [work in suburbs] and [financial interest] are some statements?

How do you know where to draw an intersection between terms in the conditionals? #help

#help I dont understand how politicians are members of the elite is something we can imply from Q5....