- Joined
- Sep 2025
- Subscription
- Live
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
I struggled with this question because I came down to answer choices A and E. reason why I didnt chose a was simply the language my prephrase was if youre morally virtuous well then overcome inclinations to do the wrong thing. which would mean at some point you did have the inclination to do the wrong thing. and because of that I did not like a. for me a was too strong since it just says youre incapable of doing it but you are capable you just chose not to. not sure if my reasoning is a little flawed so if someone wants to correct me go ahead but that ultimately got me to e
The stimulus provides us with A-> B AND /C as a premises
Conclusion: /B OR C --> /A
Ans choice a has 2 sufficient in the conclusion and one necessary which isnt what we're looking for. We're trying to find an AC that has 2 necessary 1 sufficient. Just by that alone u can cross out AC A
I feel like this question is deff harder than a two star but you can parse it. For ex. we are told that the coat patterns of species are in realtionship to where they
live
hunt
we know where these diff species live based on their coat patterns
the only thing the stimulus didn't tell us is how they hunt
for ex. if you had no outside knowledge about a lion based on this passage we truly only know where they live
so to explain this the right answer would touch on how they hunt and a is the only answer choice that touches on that
I hope this helps
this is how I thought of the stimulus:
basically were told win-> 30 volunteers
win -> informed-> 30 OF OUR ppl campaign for her
we cant pay ppl (ig were assuming OUR PPL here) which makes us circle back to okay then if we cant pay, then we need 30 volunteers.
And that my friends is how we got to C
I only got this because of lawgic. for the second statement PP--> EMP <-> some rs: desires
then u cant say PP(SOME) desires
thats why C is wrong. and the only one that cannot be true. I feel like u dont have to understand the stimulus to get this correct, bc if u mapped it out right and understand how the logic cant be right its a freebie
I mapped this more of a journalists should do X bc if not X--> Y which is bad. And here's an example of a journalist who clearly had a bad Y because they misinterpreted their X
I pre-phrased this as: the stimulus uses argument by analogy if there is a flaw that would mean that all parts of the analogy are not equal. E got me there because if theres a difference in the nature of the threat then you cannot compare the two!
Okay I finally feel a little confident to answer this question.
I start off each AC w/ the question "what if?"
A) What if "", the answer to this question doesnt tell us anything about the breeding relationship the author infers. the "causal" connection that /experience causes -> inability to breed. So I eliminated ASAP.
B) I liked this because of the world viable eggs. It's not that they are incapable of breeding but this answer choice proposes that the eggs themselves were not viable and with each trial the viability increases. Which would offer another explanation to the breeding patterns.
C) This is consistent with the stimuli we are told that " they are also less successful than themselves a year later" = which I took to mean in y2 they're a bit more successful than y1.
D) This really doesn't do anything lets say theres 100 birds and 25% die so theres 75 left, what does this tell me about breeding patterns how does this weaken the authors argument
A) Irrelevant what does changing preferences have to do with the claim that they must be trying to enlarge their customer base by attracting new customers. This answer choice talks about existing and how hard it is to change their preferences.
B) This tells us about other companies (excluding ours). What does that have to do with us. First of all we have no clue if those companies are at all alike to ours?
C) New employees have nothing to do with new customers. Great they have greater skills.
D) this focuses on current customers conclusion is about new
E) by default you can get to E through POE but for the sake of this this explains that theyre acc taking on this new adventure to provide for existing customers not new! alternative explanation
Gonna try to do explanations for each question to really hold myself accountable (so sorry in advance).
A) Even if most people who watch said program are aware of the controversy what does this have to do with the conclusion that the TV program is biased against the freeway. Irrelevant, so we can discard it.
B) Expectations of most viewers doesn't matter because the conclusion talks about the program being biased.
C) This is interesting, what does emotions have to do with apparent bias? Maybe they yelled more, talked louder? Does nothing for us
D) This tell us that the program had nothing to do with bias and in fact people held these beliefs before hand. Chronological issue
E) IMO this would strengthen the argument bc if they would he harmed by the construction well then yeah they could have a bias to not build it.
if it draws attention, then it would be in the benefit of journalists to write about it. This is why I think answer choice D is correct
Something that really helped me with these questions is looking for an answer choice that explains both parts of the issue, often time I would pick the answer choice that only affirmed one part of the stimulus and move on which caused me to get it wrong every. single. time.
My university follows a 9.0 scale, should I convert it to the LSAC scale when mentioning my GPA or leave it as 9.0
Hi! JY mentions a lesson reviewing the embedded conditionals present in
PT140.S3.Q24 does anyone have the link or understand this?
the search button doesn't highlight all the words anymore, and if im reading a long passage it automatically scrolls back up...
premise for which another premise supports is just fancy for subsidiary conclusion if we question why we believe That to be true the next sentence answers it.