@BrandonJager03 did you have a wrong answer journal? What did it look like?

C: Athens epidemic can be explained now

Why?

P: Hiccups were in many victims (some); similar to those with Ebola virus. Other symptoms with Ebola virus were mentioned in the accounts.

Assumption: Making a correlation assumption; overlooks other possibilities.

Correct answer will do nothing to argument or strengthen.

a) weakens

b) doesn't do anything to the argument. We are assuming all answer choices are true. The author mention some not all therefore, this doesn't hurt the argument.

c) weakens by giving another possibility

d) proving another cause

e) disproving the premise

Same it asks me to pay, will I be reimbursed? Thank you!

Sum: Storytelling is universal, now and then. A study was conducted, resulting in different genres with a common denominator: human personalities (concerns + interests).

A) It's trying to lure you into assuming that these themes are being burrowed since they're universal. But it doesn't say if it was burrowed; they could be all original stories.

B) Nowhere in the stimulus does it mention "long understood".

C) Certain human personalities are universal. When I saw that it was referring to the common themes the stimulus listed.

Although many referred to conditional logic, I used causal reasoning.

C: This A (bustling, overcrowded city) is caused by B (automobiles).

Why?

P: Look at all the houses that are built far from working places to have a large parking lot.

Who's to say that is the only reason or cause for the large parking? I am looking for something that takes one example as the only reason (conclusion).

A) Bingo.

B) This could be correct if it didn't say other facets of modern life. The stem did not mention any other factors.

If we fix B to say: infers from the idea that the current geography of modern cities resulted from a particular cause that only resulted from that cause

All other AC are irrelevant to the stimulus.

C: If the average factory is unjustifiable, then so is the spacecraft trip.

Why?

P: Because the spacecraft trip harms as much as the factory.

Prephrase: The environmentalist argument is flawed because they are applying their opinion to two subjects, quantifying both causing as much harm. The criticism ignores the key point of the trip by analogizing it with something else to say that it is bad (false analogy).

A) The author uses two subjects to say they are the same because the other causes harm.

B) It is not a generalization if the author uses a specific example to prove their reasoning.

@Josephyxyxyx No. The author's argument is the competitors ad was not correct, why, because sales were down the new product wasn't doing well.

They are making a causation logical reasoning.

4 ways to be in the ac:

1) A causes B

2) B causes A

3) C causes both

4) Coincedental

AC A) does not mention any causation error the other made; B) does, it says that C caused it.

@ChrisBos Yes, they are a bit different to your point, but the whole structure of the sentence is aimed for the objective: Japanese garden

a) picking a rock to fit into the Japanese garden

b) picking a rock for a Japanese garden to produce harmony

@Hayes16 Sometimes "but" indicates a shift to the author's argument. Usually disagreeing with the context.

In this case, not so much. After "but" add "also".

Con: So there are things that fail to catch our attention but also that are miracles of nature.

Adding this, you can see the intersection of that "Everything" also includes miracles of nature.

LSAT removed "also" from the sentence to refrain from making an easy question.

@JiyoonLim Yes, I was in the same boat a couple months ago. Keep plugging along and come back to this section a week after review the explanation. It will click.

@hey_maret It's more synonymous, meaning based on the context of the sentence it is similar.

Stimulus: Checker does not want to accept coupon book to only hurt Marty.

AC: Any company (Checkers) refusal it to only hurt the competitor (Marty).

Yes, it is interchangeable, but read the context to make sure.

@HollieRVA In PSA questions, it's more strengthening questions than MSS.

Conclusion: The concert hall cannot fulfill its purpose.

Premise: To fulfill its purpose, it must be in a populated area + social cohesion -> more alive.

When looking at the conclusion. I ask myself, 'Why does it need a purpose?' Hopefully, the premise provides the info I need, which it does by stating its purpose.

I would say the city center is just context, not the main rule of this question.

@MRod

Conclusion: the mosaic should be left there.

Premise: The author (archaeologist and his/her field) have all that they need from the mosaic + the needs of future archaeologists using the mosaic.

Subtly assumption: The author is slightly assuming that he his the only user or beneficiary of the mosaic.

1) When I think of PSA, I think what is the underlying assumption that the author is making that the argument currently is subpar or can be poked at.

2) We need to find AC that clears potential questions or answers them.

A) A is saying that, because this is an archaeological matter, only archaeologists have a say. This clears the assumption - even if he and his field his benefitting they have reason to claim the continued placement or the removal of the mosaic; in this case continued placement.

This eliminates other considerations such as, maybe the mosaic was taken for a museum or art gallery and not to be studied. The author is making the claim that ONLY archaeologist gets that deciding factor.

Many of us chose C because in our heads it seems reasonable that it can't go beyond its original purpose if the author cannot find a publisher.

However, the second sentence is in the past tense. The argument is that copyrighters who the government has granted provide financial and intellectual rewards. The conclusion is that those who have already been granted already goes pass its objective. The why is what we need to find.

(a) denies our claim

(b) goes against our claim

(c) this is before being granted

(d) does nothing to the argument

(e) once the author is dead, the copyright is still active, but does not continue to accrue financial rewards or circulation of ideas

@ANNASHAHVERDYAN It boils down to grammar, when I am confused with too much wording; I simplify it by subject, verb, and predicate (object).

In these question type, we are trying to match the correct answer choice to our rule: If preventable + harmed people, then manufacturer should be responsible

Innocent is modifying people, so put that in parenthesis. The answer choice is focusing on a subset of people, while the stem is saying all people. As long as there is one premise (sufficient) to conclusion, then that is the correct answer.

This is how I paraphrased (E):

E: If consequences were preventable + harmed (innocent) people, then should be held responsible.

@AnistiBarrett I usually look for the question stem for direction. In principle or rule they're painting a picture for you; you would need to see what are the premises and facts trying to tell you.

@ak2 For me, when I read it, the "When" was not an indicator. For two reasons: (1) looking at the stim as a whole, you notice that they are chaining each subject in the sentence ( [a] est caused by (->) [b] overnutrified caused by (->) [c] algae proliferation (->) [d] abundant, rich food leads to toxicity to most fish. The conclusion is that most fish die because of est, a->d.

We can also infer b -> d.

(2) When I am looking for conditional logic, it should come in an if-then statement, but the second sentence said "as a result", which is a causal indicator.

@jakekane While your scenario could be true. Since this is an MSS question we have to take everything from the stimulus as true. Any outside assumption should not be included as we assess questions.

@MorganSmith D isn't correct because adding it to the stem creates more of a discrepancy.

The first sentence is saying the record of tornadoes is increasing (e.g., data being inputted in the National Weather system 3x more than in 1953). The second sentence contradicts the first sentence by saying that even though the environment creating the tornadoes remains the same.

Therefore, our answer choice needs to explain why the record is increasing without changing the environment.

D doesn't explain the questionable event between records increasing and climate factors, but states a fact that, actually, property damage has grown because of tornadoes.

E is explaining how the record is increasing because more people are inputting them into the data site, while the environment hasn't changed since 1953.

@cwferrari You are correct. B has two reasons why it is incorrect. The main reason you listed and J.Y's comment. Nowhere in the stim does it mention most.

@DavesHotChkn A conditional logic is If A then B (A -> B). While casual is A causes B (A -> B) but you can also do B is caused by A (B-> A). Usually I would read it and say this is due to x1 and leads to x2... Since a phenomena happened caused another.

@spoon Not necessarily. For c to be correct the stimulus should imply something about engineers or cost containment. If it did, it would be correct for an assumption question

@AliGoldberg Since the statement has two conditional indicator No and Without they cancel each other out to 'One can eat a hamburger while drinking beer.

Now we are trying to negate the whole statement that we just translated into lawgic (H → B) by:

1) Keep the first claim H

2) Deny the conditional relationship which is the arrow to some or and

3) Take the contrapositive of the last claim B

H → -B or H and -B

@Katharína For most LSAT questions, technical terms will be comprehension. LSAT will include elaboration or definition as some ideas are not general knowledge

@MariaLCantu Referential phrasing is just a way to understand the stimulus better. The LSAT can write out the whole clause of what it is referring to but choose not to because of convenience.

Once you can mentally note the referential phrasing is referring to something, then you can just move on. Early on it is easy to break it down the phrases.