Take context seriously to resolve ambiguities.

SA

P: Only half buyers that says safety is important relied on objective sources of safety info

P: The other half relied on ads

C: The other half that relied on ads were mistaken when saying safety was important

We want to say that if you rely on ads/promo materials then safety not important to you/ consulting objective sources of safety info is necessary if safety is important to you

A: This is irrelevant, it's saying if someone says safety is important, doesn't mean it's the MOST important. All past tense.

B: Okay, this doesn't help us here. We need something strong, this AC is begging us to make assumptions. We need P →C, this AC doesn't do that.

C: So car buyers may lie. Okay, so what? We still need to connect our argument, make it valid.

D: What consumers are aware or not aware of is irrelevant to out task.

E: If safety is important then will consult an objective source of safety info. Perfect.

Parallel Flaw

P: Most AP comes from largest cities

P: If less populated these cities would pollute less

C: If they move from these cities to rural areas, pollution in whole country would be reduced

It goes from cities to the country as a whole. Well the cities are within the country, so shifting around their population would probably just shift around the pollution without diminishing it.

A:

P: If live in city with high cost of housing, people spend more on housing

P: Monique moved to a city with high housing cost

C: Most S spent on housing

This isn't our flaw, but I think it's flawed in that Monique may be spending a greater portion of her salary on housing, but who's to say it occupies "most" of it. Maybe she has a really high salary, or perhaps she has other forms of income.

B:

P: SFH are typically larger than apts

C: If move from apt to SFH, would have more living space

Well "typically" we can't conclude they "would/will", definitely doesn't match our flaw.

C:

P: Most fields planted with corn in country

C: Most Ward's farm planting with corn

This isn't the same flaw, but it's still flawed. We can't conclude that most of W's field is planted with corn just because most of the fields in his country are. What if he's part of the other 49% ?

Also, "most fields that used to be planted with other crops"

D:

P: Most calories consumed are in B, L, and D.

C: Eating only a portion of B, L, D, and shift the rest of that portion to snacks

This is the same flaw, we're not diminishing the total amount of calories he eats (total air pollution), we're just moving it around (cities to rural, BLD to snacks).

P: We found 5k year old copper tools near a site where the mats for birchbark canoes are easily accessible

P: These tools have been used for such a purpose by Aboriginals in more recent times

C: The Aboriginal people built birchbark canoes 5k years ago

The only thing that really sticks out to me is "more recent times" what if the aboriginal people only started making birchbark canoes with the copper tools 10 years ago? It's comparing recent times to the past. The tools are 5k years old, but were they always there in Canada?

A: Trade value is irrelevant, if we negate it, what if it had trade value? Our argument still stands, it could still be that they used them for birchbark canoes 5k years ago.

B: Negated, if they weren't present 5k years ago, then it wrecks the argument. The archaeologist is arguing that because the tools were found near birchmark and because the Aboriginal people today use them to make birchmark canoes, thus the Aboriginal people used them 5k years ago to make birchmark canoes. If the tools weren't even present "in the region" 5k years ago, then it wouldn't be likely that the Aboriginal people used them to make birchbark canoes 5k years ago.

C: We don't need this, "only" is too strong

D: We don't need this either

E: This seems similar to D, the tools could've been used for other tasks. This strengthens the argument, but the negation doesn't wreck it.

RRE questions are some of the most BS questions on this test! Just wanted to get that out of the way.

RRE

1. Camo is an effective way for some species to survive despite predation

2. Some species with no adaptations to counteract predation, have survived with black and white colors that SEEM UNLIKELY to provide effective camo

Why is it that some species without other adaptations except black and white stripes (that seem unlikely to provide effective camo), can survive?

A: Most species with the black and white coloration, outnumber their predators. I picked this one because I thought about (analogously) how insects and bugs can survive by outnumbering their predators. There's just so much of them. But I suppose this AC is wrong based on it doesn't resolve the discrepancy, how are they so successful? WITH the black and white camo, how have these species survived to be more populous?

C: Animals of predatory species perceive the black and white differently than we do. The stim only states that the black and white "seems unlikely." This resolves the paradox in that it explains how the species can survive with the black and white.

Strengthen

Ctx: Increase in number of reported tornadoes

P:Our ability to find tornadoes is better

MP: We're probably just finding a higher percentage of them now

C: The actual number of tornadoes has probably not increased

We want to strengthen the relationship between the support and the conclusion.

A: Physical damage by the average tornado, is irrelevant to our argument (P→C relationship)

B: This almost seems like a weakening, more tornadoes hitting cities.

C: With this AC it would be the smaller tornadoes that are being reported more often. Since our ability to find them has increased, after all, they are "small," we are just reporting more of them even though their actual numbers aren't increasing.

I found this AC kinda tough, it's subtle. I had to stop and ask myself, with this AC would it be our greater ability to find them? In other words, does our greater ability to find them have an impact? (making premises more relevant to conclusion)

D: Increased deaths, irrelevant :) Also, seems to weaken a bit.

E: The range in which tornadoes are common has remained the same. I'm not sure how this is relevant to the argument. We're saying that we are reporting more because our ability to find them is better, thus their numbers haven't increased. If we negate this choice, even if their range has not stayed the same, it still doesn't affect our argument.

RRE

T's temp is always at least 10 lower than C's

C's winter heating bills are always higher than T's.

Why is it that despite T being colder than C, C has higher heating bills in winter?

A: C is windier which causes more heat loss in comparison. Check.

B: C is warm during the day but then dips colder at night. Hmm but T still remains colder than C regardless of that. In fact, this adds to mystery, C is warm during the day, so assuming they don't need as much heat cuz it's warm, why would their bills be higher?

C:T has better utility rates. Check.

D:Those used to warmer temps like to keep warm. Check.

E: Houses in colder climates (T), are better insulated than houses in warmer climates (C). Check. This provides a potential explanation because T is always at least 10 degrees colder, so it's reasonable to assume it's in a colder climate.

I like this question. Necessary Assumption

P: Many herbal medicines work best taken for several months

P:Many of these medicines have toxic side effects when taken for such a period of time

C: People who use herbal medicines daily should occasionally skip a dose, to alleviate the side effects

So right away we're talking about a subset of herbal medicines, those that work best taken for several months. And within this subset we're given another subset, the ones that are toxic when taken for such a long time.

The conclusion is about people that "take herbal medicines daily." The argument is assuming that people that "take herbal medicines daily" exist within the toxic sub subset. I think this question might be tricky if you conflate "take herbal medicines daily" with the first premise of "herbal medicines that work best over several months." But you would still need the assumption that they're taking medicines that have the toxic side effects.

A: At least one person that uses herbal medicines daily, uses them long enough for there to be side effects (tiny assumption that they are the toxic side effects, but if we negate "side effects" would wreck the argument).

LSAC is getting trickier, they're bucking the trend in so many ways!

PSA: P → C

Relevant Ctx: Marva's has exceptional food but Traintrack is more popular despite it having ordinary food.

P: Traintrack's location is the single factor that is almost enough to guarantee it a steady flow of customers.

C: Thus, it's not surprising that even though Traintrack has shitty food, it's still more popular than Marva's even though Marva has exceptional food.

I was down to B and D.

B: This doesn't address the context very well, it's irrelevant. We're talking about the popularity of the restaurants in relative terms with the addition of their food quality.

D: Hmm, if we insert this into the argument: Traintracks has no need to improve its food because it already has a steady flow of customers due to its more convenient location. This absolutely most helps to justify the critic's reasoning.

The fact that the conclusion was in the form of a conditional kept bothering me until I found another perhaps, easier way to do it:

Our conclusion is in conditional form with the words "until" and "consequence" as indicators. So we can say that these two are already connected.

If we have not improved →not accurate. Following our SA question format, we would need Not improved →can't distinguish homophones.

Not improved →can't distinguish between homophones →not accurate

Necessary Assumption

P: Siri can't distinguish between homophones

P:If siri isn't improved to recognize and utilize grammatical and semantic relations among words

C: Siri won't accurately translate a user's spoken words into text

At first glace it appears that nothing in this argument is connected. But since this is an NA question the premises must be connected with each other and with the conclusion, that's our job here. I went straight to the ACs and noticed that only A and D provide some type of connection, however they only seem to be connected with each other and not the conclusion. And this is where I got stuck, skipped this question came back to it.

Upon second glance, I thought "something must be connected to the conclusion." The first premise gives us this connection, although implicitly. If it can't distinguish between homophones then it isn't accurate. Now we can properly connect this argument:

Implicit premise :Can't distinguish homophones →Isn't accurate

We need: Not improved →can't distinguish homophones

The new LSATs seem to have much more implicit premises, I think on this test there were at least a couple; in section 1 of this PT one of the ACs took an explicit premise that was mentioned in the stim and made it implicit in the correct AC.

For this one an implicit and thus extremely reasonable premise connects one of our argument's premises to the conclusion, and therefore all we needed to do was connect the second premise to the first.

At first it appears that the conclusion isn't supported by anything in the stimulus. However, not accurate is concluded, while the premise gives us something that is NOT accurate "cannot distinguish between homophones."

Necessary Assumption

P: Researchers that wore masks trapped crows and released them in the same area

P: Later, they came back with the same masks to the same area and were shrieked and dive bombed by crows

C: Crows are capable of recognizing threatening people and can even pass the info to other crows

The argument is an interpretation of something, yeah they were shrieked at and dive bombed but does that really tell us that was because they recognized the researchers? Our conclusion also has two claims, so does that really tell us that the crows passed the info to other crows? Our NA will probably rule out an alternative interpretation, or bridge the idea that the crows passed info to the other crows somehow.

A: This is necessary for the second claim of our conclusion. Negated, if all the crows were the original crows then it wrecks the second claim. I don't remember seeing an NA question with two claims, and the correct answer is necessary for one of the claims.

B: Always is a bit too strong here, we don't need them to "always" respond that way, the one time that they did in the study could be enough. Perhaps if it said they sometimes respond by shrieking and dive bombing.

Parallel flaw question. We need to find the flaw in the stim, and locate its parallel in the AC.

P: Pet owners and take allergy medication (intersection between pet owners and people that take allergy medication) ‑m→ allergic to pets

P: Chuck is a pet owner

C: Allergic to pets LIKELY to take allergy medication

I got this question right by finding the similar flaw structure in the correct AC. However, it's a cookie cutter flaw so it's important to be familiar with it in all of its forms.

Flaw: I think if it wasn't for the intersection of pet owners and allergy medication I would've got this flaw sooner. Also the way that LSAC presented the information in the conclusion and correct AC.

The "most" and "likely" statement issue notwithstanding, it's a case of reversed logic (the oldest trick in the book). Just because Chuck (a pet owner) develops allergies, doesn't mean he's likely to take allergy medication. Remember, "allergic to pets" is our necessary condition and "pet owner" and "allergy medication" is our sufficient (though not truly as it's a "most" statement). Our conclusion simply switches these around and adds a "likely." Even if Chuck has allergies he could just decide not to take medication.

B: P: Cars and taken to ACME ‑m→electric problems

(What we need:

P: someone's car

C: develops electric problems LIKELY taken to acme)

C: A's car has electrical problems LIKELY taken to acme

Tricky LSAC, instead of explicitly stating the premise "someone's car" it's implied.

For AC D: We know that scientists believe the strength of the El Nino was enhanced by global warming which was caused by air pollution. That's all we know about what they "believe" for a must be true question. Also, we know that the El Nino caused the drought, but we can't say what is actually responsible for the fires. All we know is that the forest was more susceptible to fire, nowhere is it even hinted at what caused the fires.

NA Question, we need to focus on and identify the core.

P: Museum visitors don't spend as much time looking at works of art like they used to.

P: They pause, perhaps take a pic, and move on.

C: People are less willing to engage with works of art than they once were.

Does spending time looking at works of art mean one is engaged with that work? The argument assumes this.

We're talking about museums? Do museums represent all works of art? What if people engage with other works of art not in museums? Again, what does engage mean?

A: They look at more pieces, great, but our argument still stands. They're still only looking for a short time, which our argument assumes is an indicator of engagement.

B: Irrelevant, speed isn't discussed.

C: Enjoyment isn't discussed, irrelevant.

D: This one is a trap choice. What if they often look at the pictures afterwards? Does that mean they're engaging? We can't assume that looking means they're engaging. The premise assumes that time is the important factor for engagement. What if they look at them often but only for a few seconds? Also, this is talking about a subset of museum visitors, those that take a snapshot. Our conclusion is about people in general while our premises mentions that museum visitors "perhaps" maybe take a snapshot, making this detail less important/semi irrelevant.

MSS Question we're looking for something we can conclude from the statements in the stimulus. That means there's something that we're going to have to push out from the stimulus.

1. GW contributes to increase in sea levels due to it causing glaciers and ice sheets to melt and increasing the water temp which causes the volume of water to increase.

2.The rise in sea level is less than it would be, because people have been storing water that would reach the sea.

A: "In dispute." I don't think it's in dispute or at least there's nothing in the statements that would lead us to think it is. What we know is that the sea level is less than it otherwise would be, but I don't think this is in dispute.

B: We can't conclude anything about before the reservoirs were built.

C: This contradicts our first statement.

D: We don't know about how much water is in the reservoirs compared to the amount that was melted, all we know is the sea level should be higher but it's not because we're storing the water elsewhere.

E: Yeah we can't measure the amount of water that melts from ice sheets and glaciers by looking at sea level alone, since it could be both the melting and the increase in volume to varying degrees. Based on our stimulus, this cannot be determined.

Weaken

P: T opposes higher taxes, all other candidates all support them.

P:Many agree anyone that opposing high taxes makes a better leader than someone that supports them.

C: T is the best to lead the nation (of those running).

I found this one kinda tricky, I didn't know how to approach it right away. But just remember the task! On weakening we're trying to weaken the relationship between the Premises and the Conclusion, so it is important to get clear on the argument even if you can't anticipate the flaw. If you don't get a clear picture of the argument, the ACs will not be your salvation.

A: This seems like it attacks our premise, but it doesn't because it states it as a fact vs the premise states it an opinion. It's saying opposing high taxes is not a factor in good leadership irrespective of what "many people" think. This AC states the actual truth, it weakens the relationship between the P and the C.

B: This is similar to A, opposing high taxes doesn't guarantee good leadership, this is stronger than A. This doesn't work because our Premise is a comparison of the candidates running, the P states that opposing makes a better leader than one who supports. The fact that opposing doesn't guarantee good leadership doesn't harm our argument, since our premise is a comparison.

C: This one doesn't engage with the argument, we need to weaken the relationship between P and C. This AC seems to independently go for the conclusion, trap AC.

D: Past leaders? Adequately? Irrelevant

E: Hardworking? Nope.

Flaw

P: Opponents figures are based on a partial review of ATC tapes

P: Other figure is based on thorough studies of pilot flight reports required of all pilots

C: Opponents figure is unreliable compared to other figure.

Since our conclusion is a comparison about the two figures with the other figure winning over the opponents' figure in terms of reliability. I might want to be on the lookout for something that casts doubt on the other figure.

A: This is irrelevant to the relationship between our P and C, it's not what our arg is about. And The argument doesn't assumes this, so it fails our 1st test of descriptive accuracy.

B: Those who make mistakes (pilots since we're talking about pilots straying off course), are unreliable sources for info about their mistakes. This casts doubt on the other figure which is based on pilots' self reports. This is 1, descriptively accurate, and 2, it describes the flaw. We're talking about ATC tapes vs self reporting, with the AC it makes the other figure much more unreliable.

C: The argument doesn't do this, descriptively inaccurate, it attacks only their evidence.

D: Descriptively inaccurate, the argument only concludes that they are relatively unreliable compared to the other figure.

E: Which number is the higher one? And again, it doesn't conclude inaccuracy.

Yay congrats! 7Sage is proud of you! Thanks for sharing your happy news with us!

There should be five LG sections with the writing sample replaced by make your own LG game. And if they like the LG game you made, they will use it on future LSATs and give you bonus points :) :) :)

Necessary Assumption

P: Efforts to get people to exercise that emphasized the positive benefits instead of the dangers of being sedentary had little success

P: Efforts to get people to stop smoking that emphasized the negative effects instead of the positive was highly successful

C: Efforts to get people to exercise that emphasizes the negative rather than the positive would be more successful

This is an argument by analogy, usually we want to make the analogy relevantly similar but this isn't a strengthen question, it's a necessary assumption. I have absolutely no idea what I should look for here, I just got a real clear understanding of the argument and went into the ACs.

A: Must it be true/do we need health risks with sedentary lifestyle to be as great as those with smoking? Hmm, this is tricky. If it were true the argument would absolutely be strengthened, but this is an NA. We don't need this to be true, if they're not as great our argument P→C still stands because we're using the fact that the smoking campaign was successful by emphasizing the negative to support the conclusion that the exercising campaign would be more successful if it did the same. We simply don't need their dangers to be equated (though it would strengthen). I would keep this one in mind, but take a really close look at the other ACs.

B: We don't need this, and it seems to kind of weaken.

C: Irrevelant

D: Hmm. Do we need this? Must it be true that if they had emphasized the positive benefits instead of the negative, the cigarette smoking effort would have been even more successful. Well yeah, we need this because we're arguing that it was BECAUSE they emphasized the negative over the positive (opposite of the exercise effort) that they were successful and that the exercise effort should do the same. If this weren't true it would wreck our logic/reasoning and we wouldn't be able to say that the health campaign should emphasize the negative.

MBT the AC has to be 100% proven by the stimulus, I would've solved it faster if I took the time to really understand what the stimulus is saying, and thinking about what the mbt inference is.

P: What your intuition says: 1. Conclusion of the paradox is false. 2. The conclusion follows logically from true premises.

P: Solving the paradox requires accepting one of: 1. Conclusion is true. 2. At least one of the premises is false. 3.Conclusion doesn't follow logically

What's MBT? Solving the paradox by accepting one of the conditions, goes against what your intuition says.

A: This is correct, solving the paradox explicitly goes against what your intuition says. If we choose to accept the conclusion as true, our intuition says that it's false. If we choose to accept that one of the premises is false, our intuition says the premises are true. If we choose to accept that the conclusion doesn't follow logically, our intuition says that it does.

B: No, the conclusion could be true because you can accept it as such.

E: No, just accept at least one of the premises as false.

I messed this one up due to my strategy. I tunneled visioned on finding an AC that directly stated/restated the premise and went from that to the conclusion. I immediately got it in BR when I was relaxed. This is what is normally supposed to be done on these types of questions. But very frequently you get questions like this one, where with the existing premises + the correct AC you get to the conclusion, the AC with the existing premises most definitely helps to justify the argument. It fills in the gap. I circled B but went with C and E anyway because of my tunnel vision, even though I knew they weren't right during the test, just because B didn't take the form I expected, this is something to be especially careful with in the newer LSAT tests.

PSA

P: Some countries signed agreement intended to reduce pollution

P: Agreement would actually reduce pollution

P: Agreement would probably also reduce our country's economic growth

C: Our country shouldn't sign the agreement

I'm looking for something that allows us to reach our conclusion, on PSA questions we usually want to find something that is an abstract restatement of our premises and conclusion. So something like: If it hampers economic growth then we shouldn't sign (even though it might have positive benefits).

A: This is irrelevant to our argument, and it's descriptively inaccurate.

B: Since it's more important to maintain economic growth in our country and current agreement will reduce that growth, then we definitely shouldn't sign the agreement. The principle in this AC absolutely most justifies the argument. Even though it's not in the form of P →C, we definitely have come across these types of PSA questions before. This tells us how we should base our decision, since the conclusion is concluding we "shouldn't" do something, it's prescriptive. Why shouldn't we do it? Well, because econ is more important to us and the agreement would damage that.

C: The first half of this AC states the conclusion, and thus it is so far so good. However, the sufficient does NOT describe our premises at all. Is there a better means? We don't know this at all, it's not part of our argument.

D: Well our country did consider other economies as well, this doesn't do anything to our argument. We need a principle/assumption that will take us to the conclusion (most helps to justify), this AC doesn't make the cut.

E: This has the logic reversed, we need to conclude that we should not implement the policy. This takes the form of: Shouldn't implement the policy→either likely reduces econ growth or not likely to protect environment.

Sufficient Assumption

P: LA & AA→ ICI

C: LA & Not concern for beauty, you can be a legit artwork and not be concerned with beauty or some legit artwork not concerned with beauty

We already have LA in the premise and conclusion. So we need to go from LA to not concerned with beauty. For that we need ICI →not concerned with beauty. With this connection we get:

LA & AA →ICI→CB which validates our conclusion of LA ←s→CB or you can be an LA and not be a CB.