Correct. "The chief" in this case could be replaced with something like "the main/primary."

They're still on the LSAT. I believe the court ruled that the LSAC had four years to "figure out a new solution," so who knows what that'll look like in the future, but it probably won't be at least for the next couple of years.

This is exactly why I thought A was wrong.

I found the Loophole really helpful in getting to the mid 50s if you want a supplemental source for LR.

Honestly, as cliche as it sounds, I think it comes with practice. I answered this question pretty quickly (1:03) diagramming in my head, but I've been studying for a while and recently got 7Sage since I wasn't improving on my own.

How do we know there's a binary cut of standard vs nonstandard? I had trouble with this one originally (and incorrectly picked D), partially due to me at first thinking about what if there's some other weird option that's not either.

#help (Added by Admin)

Yes, yes, yes! Those comments drive me nuts.

The Loophole teaches NA and SA in a way that made me finally understand them.

SA: SA → Premises → Conclusion

What, if true, would prove the conclusion to be true?

NA: Premises → Conclusion → NA

If the argument is true, what must be true?

You basically have to make the assumption that visible infections = not healthy, so when the female mates see those infections, they know that those male males aren't healthy and consequently, not mate with them.

For weaken/strengthen questions, the right answer choice can talk about things beyond the scope of the argument. The conclusion for this question is, "The proposal is pointless," so you can basically say anything under the sun that would argue against that conclusion. That said, the stimulus did bring up humans and how humans eat these creatures, so AC E bringing up humans wasn't entirely even out of the scope of the stimulus.

The premises here basically say high tax > negative incentive for technological innovation > fall behind in the arms race > lose voice in world affairs. This train leads to the conclusion that the tax rate must not exceed 30% if these individuals want to maintain their value system and way of life. However, if that chain of thought is flawed in any way, can you really say that your conclusion is airtight? No, which is why it weakens the argument.

In other words, think of it conditionally:

high tax → negative incentive for technological innovation → fall behind in the arms race → lose voice in world affairs → must not raise taxes

C basically is saying:

high tax → negative incentive for technological innovation → fall behind in the arms race → lose voice in world affairs → must not raise taxes

Is that valid? No, the only way to make ^ valid is if you're using the contrapositive for the entire chain.

While what you said it's true, you don't have to destroy an argument in weaken questions - you simply have to weaken it. So, anything that does exactly that can be the right answer choice. That said, if you have an answer choice that does weaken it and another one that destroys it, the right answer choice is probably the latter. However, if you just have one that weakens it, as in this case, that's likely the right answer.

It's sort of like an alternative cause (C is causing A and B), that the reason why cod decreased and seals increased is because of pollution. We're trying to find an answer choice that basically says that there is actually a relationship between cod and seals.

I can see what you’re saying. I think on iffy correct answer choices, it’s sometimes much more helpful seeing if you can quickly eliminate all the other answers, which is what I did. Nevertheless, focusing on your point specifically:

Even though the first sentence focuses on those with no printing expertise, the rest of the stimulus doesn’t. Honing into the conclusion and only the conclusion, I believe, is sometimes helpful in helping you see what’s context aka what could be deleted from the argument while still having the stimulus make sense.

However, even if you do still focus on the first sentence, I think it can be assumed that if sophisticated counterfeiters can’t even duplicate the micro-printed currently exactly, then those “below” them certainly couldn’t either.

I've noticed in several questions I keep forgetting that the stimulus is talking about a specific type/group of X (in this case, it was labor-saving technology) when going into the answer choices, and then I pick the answer choice that is broader (in this case, E, which just says technology). Does anyone else have this issue? I keep noting it, but evidently keep forgetting it when I continue onward in answering other questions.

#help (Added by Admin)

Formal logic is taught later in the Core Curriculum.

I took certain phrases in this way too literally. I was thinking "at night" = there could still be sunlight as that's the case in some countries, summer nights can be long in the US, etc., but now I know that I can assume there's no sunlight whenever the LSAT references "at night" in the future.

That said, I wasn't confident in the answer I eventually chose (D), so don't do this! Next time I'm not confident, I should make sure I'm not missing anything else on other potential answer choices.

You're correct that it's introduced in the next logic section. These questions/explanations are not just for the Core Curriculum, but also for people who are doing these problems as problem sets and practice tests, so I think that's why they talk about contrapositive here. Also, you don't necessarily have to know what the contrapositive is in order to get the right answer.

I was not reading closely enough to separate the petals and flowers from one another, along with the fact that we know nothing about the plant as a whole.

A: No idea - they could be attracted to them.

B: I didn’t choose this originally because I was thinking: What if we can fix this issue if we just give them more nutrients? However, the stimulus does say unpollinated > triggers the chemical, so it seems like no matter what the circumstances are with the plant, that relationship will happen.

C: Way too strong and broad

D: Stimulus says that once the plant is pollinated, a chemical is released, which causes the petals to wilt within a couple of days. We don’t know anything else about pollinated flowers.

E: We only know things about the petals and the flowers, not anything about the plant as a whole.

Since we know the sample is representative, we do know it represents the majority of Denmark's population. A sample can be small and still representative of the majority.

Amazing post. Thank you. I needed it. 😅

I'm basically in the same boat as you so I'm probably not helpful, but I figured I'd let you know what I'm doing. I signed up for 7Sage a few days ago, so I'm a newbie, but have been studying on my own off-and-on for a while. (I was getting 158-159 consistently for a few months, which was pissing me off and that's what led me to finally try 7Sage this past weekend lol). Even though I have familiarity with the test, I'm following the Core Curriculum plan fully because whatever the heck I was doing clearly wasn't working. I have been watching a lot of the videos with increased speed since I'm familiar with those concepts, so maybe that's something you could do as well? I'm planning to take it this summer though, so I have a bit more time than you.

Ultimately, you'll be focusing on the argument, and the conclusion specifically, to answer the question. If you go into a question focused on the wrong thing, you'll likely get it wrong.