its also helpful to know the pattern of reasoning used here. author used reasoning by analogy. author thinks these 2 situations (hospitals in this case) are similar to one another. and that's the flaw. these hospitals differ, and C shows the difference

i thought so too, but then i caught myself and started thinking wait. if it is already like that, the fact that many houses already had 3+ apartment, that would mean it started as always having 3+ apartments. he just assumed they were all equal.

i first eliminated E cuz i thought then that would make the conclusion stronger. making it say yeah a lot of OH has 3+ apartments, so its true most old houses has that. but we don't know how much alot is. does alot mean more than 50% of all the OH? no, we dont know. it could just mean 15/60. and 15 is still described as alot.

remember your foundations! most = more than 50% alot = it isnt a clear range. its hazy. but a good rule of thumb is to make it like around 10-end spectrum. consider the context.

i hope this helps people. i chose e first, but then changed my answer to c in my BR. so i was really trying to find the difference between the two.

It is wrong because, in the end it can still cut the wages of those employees.

I used law→raise

I first thought C was correct because If you take negation of that, which is /law -> raise, wouldn't that be devastating to the argument? because it means the employers can just raise the wages as high as they want so they can cut the benefits and pay. and that's when i realized, that that is precisely why its wrong. because they are still cutting the wages.

we need something that will prevent cutting wages, not raising it. because the argument is so heavily focused on the law cutting wages, but still didn't give further support exactly how that law would affect people. E is saying through compliance. if the law is out, then people WILL NOT cut the wages. this reassures us that the law will prevent the cutting of wages through peoples compliance with the prohibition.

i hope this helps but how I was able to understand C as the right answer was because

lets say those specific outrageous acts were screaming, sleeping around, being in a diddy party idk. do these acts mean that you are a tyrant? no, it could just mean its your vibe. you just do that for vibes.

but C goes beyond this and says those that do those stuff, in fact, make you a tyrant. this type of pattern of reasoning is seen in the other writings that label people as tyrants. so C exposes that flaw therefore making the conclusion stronger.

are you telling me that b is wrong because its language is too strong, particularly the word All?

cuz damn, i didn't realize that it would be that simple.

eliminating by strength of language works 80% of the time. what you should be looking out for is how relevant and supported an answer is. A, despite being strong, meets those conditions. dont always cross out questions merely by strength.

i think in this context, its okay to assume they are the same thing because it is really well supported. ruth cant be qualified to write about 1960's RM because she was a baby, according to Jorge. And ruth is saying yes i am qualified despite my age.

i think really the trick for things like this is also doing POE to bring confidence in your answer. the other answers had flaws and A was the most appropriate.

if you cant find an answer you anticipated, usually it's because you're looking for an ideal answer. be a bit flexible on what that should look like.

thats what I thought too and i realized that i misunderstood the argument. Remember the conclusion!

Its fighting for the fact that BEAUTY IS OBJECTIVE. reasons are, what was beautiful for before is similar to what is considered beautiful today. these similarities mean that beauty is in fact objective.

I thought C was strengthening because that's exactly what his reasoning is saying. That yeah they are similar. But i realized that i was assuming that similarities = objective. NO! there is a possibility they could be similar BUT FOR OTHER REASONS. Like passing down a standard. This is bringing in the scope, that when we do have a standard of beauty, it is strongly influenced by the past. effectively weakening his conclusion of beauty being objective. Cuz what if their standard of beauty was subjective, and it was what was passed down to us.

i hope this helps.

nevermind i saw it hahaha. SKIMMING IS THE DEATH OF ME. it says R impugns motive, which is bad. but then author is like, oh R also has this motive though. so author is employing it. I hope this helps others ahahah

#help im just wondering where the support is for the employ part in AC E. Like I can see the objects to part, which is implicitly stated in the conclusion with the word "Unfortunately". But saying the argument employed a tactic, I was trying to find it implicitly and explicitly, but I'm left leaning towards the reasoning that the last sentence is more like just narrating what's happening.

That's how i usually approach questions. I didn't really take it as hypocrisy, but i do see it. Just I still want to know where the support is for that employs part.

i once scored a 0 haha. now im plateuing at -2. idk if i should be happy or sad about that XD

hi guys just leaving this here just in case its helpful. in a must be false question, we are typically looking for an answer that contradicts that stimulus. meaning there is support on why its false.

i want to bring emphasis on that because if you dont know, it doesnt mean its false. it simply means YOU DONT KNOW, meaning it COULD BE TRUE OR IT COULD BE FALSE. and dingding, that makes it a right choice. I placed C in this category.

A is wrong because it contradicts the sentence that sharks have a GREATER resistance than any other organism. they have no equal.

i think it's actually okay for me, at least in my opinion. What came out to me was that this is causal relationship. and its conclusion is very strong. outright saying anyone with skin irritation means you have tuberculosis. it was absolutely necessary that C is right because if negated it means there are other bacterias that also give skin irritation, making the conclusion wrong.

also when you said "Yet it uses the gosh darn stupid locution “proteins present in the tuberculosis bacterium”. Yet the proteins are not present in the bacteria when they are injected–per the first sentence of the prompt."

thats not how i understood the prompt. i think what the prompt is saying that the proteins were extracted from the bacteria. and those proteins (the ones that were extracted from the bacteria) are injected. i think maybe how youre translating the answer choice is the bacteria with the proteins are injected? its simply the proteins (that were extracted from the bacteria) were injected. I hope that helps.

the reasons why i crossed out D is because

1. it doesnt focus on the skin irritation = tuberculosis relationship. which is what we need to really strengthen.

2. its so weak. the conclusion is really strong saying ANYONE that has skin irritation HAS tuberculosis. saying some doesnt match its strength

3. i recognized its a causal relationship, and in causal relationships, arguments that outright say A causes B, NEEDS to make sure that that relationship is absolutely strengthened because its so hard to defend.

make sure it connects to the relationship. thats what matters. focus on the pattern of reasoning, its already giving you 50% of the clue.

this is so helpful thank you!

you can make reasonable assumptions. in fact i feel like thats something you should do especially with the highest level questions. making UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS however is a nono.

i think the difference between the two is that youre going out of your way to make the answer work. so you add and add and add more assumptions. that is unreasonable. a reasonable assumption is like, literally 1 added assumption to make the argument work.

the only time i consider making a reasonable assumption is when i see the other choices are bad AND IK its bad.

i was so confident with D

#help Hi is it okay to have this as my thought process?

Supporting line: but critics often balk at [Mphahlele’s vision of the future] because Mphahlele provides no road maps for bringing such a future about.

road maps → acceptable

what D is saying: road map → acceptable

D is correct because even though it negated that supporting line, it doesn't make it completely wrong. this is because it could go in either direction, it may be accepted or unaccepted. What made D even more attractive is how the answer has the word "might" in it, showing the accuracy of the translation of the diagrammed relationship.

i just know that the more recent a PT is, its more representative to the LSAT's current format

WOOOOO feels so good getting a highest-difficulty question right

if its simple, i do it in my head. if there are alot of points in a paragraph, i find it best to write it down then keep it in my head. it's all about what effective for me. most of the time, its mental. but if its too complex, i write it down.

tbh it really is hard so dont beat yourself up. maybe try to take in one sentence at a time and see how to connects to each other. then when you finish the paragraph, do that low res summary.

try to be engaging with the passage, it helps you actively understand. ofc this takes lots of practice, just keep trying and trying and you'll eventually see the patterns and your habits.

maybe work more on your flaws and your formal logical reasoning? This helps your speed and accuracy. at least thats what worked for mee as a former low diagnostic scorer

not doing a deep dive analysis. like youre superficially analyzing an answer choice at its first mistake. this helps saves you lots of time

IMO i think the reason why E is wrong, is because while it gives a good alternative, that's ALL ITS DOING. like it's still playing along with the facts of those 2 options. not really stating that given flaw of false dichotomy. theres that subtle difference.

B in comparison broadly shows that false dichotomy. maybe if B wasnt there, E would be the next best choice answer. But evidently, B was there and triumphed E.

i guess i got this wrong because i wasnt familiar with this format of false dichotomy. i always saw it in a descriptive form, not a in conditional form so it made me question it a bit. but it was an accurate display for conditional language.