I think so because after the original "overlooks the possibility that" an assumption is stated

A and D are just giving examples that go against the correlations given as support. But the thing about correlation is that it can be true even when there are some examples that do not conform to the correlation!

I like to think of a graph with a ton of dots and a diagonal line going through them. To use the smoking example lets say the y axis (vertical) says Lung cancer cases and the x (horizontal) says Number of people that smoke in a region. On the graph are a ton of different data points (dots) of different cities, showing the number of people there who smoke and the amount of lung cancer cases the city has. Let's say the Paris dot is at the right top of the line (tons of people who smoke and tons of lung cancer), and Los Angeles is really low at the bottom left (not a lot of people smoke, not a lot of lung cancer). These two cases are what we would expect, given that smoking causes lung cancer. But let's say there's an outlier on the graph; in NYC, there are a ton of people who smoke, but no one is getting lung cancer there! There's a dot for this case that doesn't follow the general trend of more people smoking =more lung cancer. The dot wouldn't be on the diagonal line. NYC is like the A and D answer choices!

Just because there is a case that doesn't conform to the general rule doesn't make that rule untrue. A says wait, there are babies with inadequate prenatal care, but they have normal birthrates, and D says wait, there are babies with adequate prenatal care, but they still have low birthrates. A and D don't follow the general rule, but they don't destroy the correlation. Inadequate prenatal care can still be correlated with a low birthrate. Hope this helps!

I think it's because it is not just opp that encompasses the first sentence; the surrealist's perspective is in the first sentence, too! We know how she thinks because of the adverb "mistakingly." She thinks that it is a mistake to think that models need to be taken only from outside the psyche. By inference, she thinks that artists should not do what she believes to be a mistake "to merely represent objects from outside the psyche," which is the main conclusion. Hope this helps!

JY says to always be wary if, in a main conclusion, you think the answer is the last sentence. That doesn't mean the last sentence can never be the answer but use caution. On other question types, a thus usually does signal the conclusion where the LSAT is not testing your ability to access the conclusion but to identify an assumption, for example. I hope this helps!

To add to the explanation below, E is also wrong because it is an incorrect translation of the conditional statement, so it is also factually inaccurate. The conditional we are given says:

IF /well equipped to answer -> Something is badly wrong

the contrapositive is:

IF /something badly wrong -> well equipped to answer

Answer choice E wrongly states the contrapositive, making the necessary condition (well-equipped to answer) the sufficient condition by saying:

If well equipped to answer -> /something badly wrong

I hope this helps!

I am so appreciative that 7Sage uses "she" as the generic default pronoun in its video and written explanations, especially in a case like this where, because of our patriarchal society, we are programmed to automatically conceive a Market Analyst as a "he." Sincerely, Thank you 7Sage, for this act of microfeminism. #feedback

I think B is also wrong because the person keeping the secret might also be keeping it a secret that she's keeping a secret. We cannot assume that she also has a compelling reason for this "meta" keeping, and we know that this keeping also facilitates an abuse of power.

From oxford languages:

1. Exercise

activity requiring physical effort carried out to sustain or improve health and fitness.

- Would a worker in this capacity really be lifting to sustain or improve their health and fitness? That seems like an unreasonable assumption if it is in the context of a job. Weighing this assumption vs. the assumption for c, that being encouraged to do something means that you will actually do it. I suppose the former assumption is more reasonable, but it still seems shakey

Would D be correct if it said, "The argument overlooks the possibility that the number of social media messages posted in the morning and or evening is not significantly different from the number posted in the afternoon?" If the answer choice said this, perhaps it is not the case that more happy words, supposedly indicating mood, are posted in the morning or evening; it is just a more significant amount of messages overall, which carries with it more happy messages.

Then it would not be the case that more happy messages are posted in the morning or evening compared to the afternoon if a similar amount of messages are posted during each time frame. Instead, the difference in happy messages is because in the afternoon, there are only, say, 2 messages posted overall versus in the morning, there are 2k. Of course, then there would be more happy messages posted in the morning. #help #feedback

a parallel to B's flawed reasoning: The public generally accepts that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President Kennedy. That does not mean this claim has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of all skeptics. Grassy knoll

For question 11, answer choice D, we know the author of B believes you need to be convincing to lie, but I don't see how being subtle is supported. In the opening paragraph, the author talks about the lie being more vivid. If something is being told more vividly than it actually occurred, then that telling doesn't seem to be a subtle lie, like a little tweak to the truth, but a stronger exaggeration.

For D even if they did have to read all the surviving records, the record keepers were still clergy members! So if this choice has any relevance, it could be argued that it would strengthen the argument; one would be viewing more data that, according to the argument, "could have been exaggerated."

I disagree with why answer choice A is wrong, "students are ever capable," or always capable, "of adequately judging a teacher's performance." I think Bettina would directly disagree with this because she gives an example of a time when students are not capable of Adequately judging teacher performance when they are taught and subsequently fail to appreciate their teacher's impact until many years later. At the time, before they appreciated their teacher's performance for what it was, I think it can be inferred that Bettina would think of the students as inadequate judges. Consequently, she would disagree with "students are ever capable." I think Oscar would also disagree, making this answer choice incorrect because a student's being ever capable can be interpreted as, 30 years after the student was taught by the teacher, they are still capable of adequately judging performance, which I think is too strong of an interpretation. #feedback

I understand this question has a somewhat lower standard as a "most support" question, also being a Point at issue, and question 1. Still, the rationale for why B is right seems to oppose a major lesson that more complex LR questions teach: you can disagree with the "flawed logic" but still agree with the conclusion. Saying the argument is bad doesn't mean you don't agree with the argument's conclusion. #feedback

I understand that arguing with the test is not extremely fruitful, but Q 19's answer choice D has a category that does not seem to map onto the passage analogously to free speech or receiving money. The passage argues that both free speech and receiving money are legal separately. However, their intersection is not. D relies on this kind of reasoning with being a felon and owning a gun, that they too are illegal together. To map this correctly to the passage then, both should be legal separately. Is being a felon legal? It seems like an odd categorization as being a felon is a state of being imposed by a legal system vs. an action like speaking freely or receiving money that can be deemed legal or illegal.

I think A is also incorrect for 13 because the answer choice doesn't quantify what kind of testimony the medical experts are employing as C does. For C we know that it is a strictly verbal testimony which we already know the author critiques. In contrast, for A, the testimony isn't quantified. Who is to say that the testimony referred to in A is strictly verbal and, consequently, that its effectiveness would be questioned by the author?

I think B is also the right answer because the stimulus already accounts for some people with ebola not having hiccups. The stimulus doesn't say that the accounts mentioned the hiccups were experienced by all victims but instead by "many victims."

Why wouldn't you also look for PTO going to COA as that would also connect? #Help

I miss them : (

Isn't the better explanation referred to in 6 in the final paragraph?

I cannot find any evidence in the passage that the recommendations are via word of mouth, specifically for question 5. I see that it is better than the others, but why can this be assumed?

"moral codes that sometimes require them to ignore their welfare" is too ambiguous. Whether this means there are two types of moral codes (some which always require one to ignore their own welfare and some that do not) OR (Moral codes, and within this set of codes sometimes one has to ignore their own welfare) complicates this question significantly.

Additionally, I think JY should address wording issues like having empathy vs "empathizing with people" in answer choice B and if these two are equivalent or not.

#feedback

Should ecological problems be considered environmental problems inherently? If this is not a common-sense assumption, I believe D should be given greater consideration #help

Is C actually an argument Flaw? and if so, in what question is this the right answer? #help

This is true for D as well, referencing an agricultural society