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.

you can treat this like a resolve question. i noticed that there is a discrepancy in the argument and so far D was the one that resolved it.

#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.

My thought process.

take the answers to be true and see if it absolutely wrecks the argument.

A: The stimulus doesn't give support on what the motives are. therefore wrong.

B: it's saying if its dramatic, it can also be strong scientific evidence. i really dont see how this connects. and let's say i do. i have to fill in so many assumption gaps and it will waste my time. this is how ik this isn't the right answer

C: the argument is confusing a claim with another claim. i didn't even bother to read what the content of the claim is because there's no confusion with claims here. i already knew that it's cherry picking, so that isn't the right flaw.

D: i took this to be true and i saw how it absolutely wrecked the argument. as JY says the proportion for small observational studies must be so big compared to large ones, which is why it's on newspapers.

E: this is a causal defect. not the flaw were looking for.

dumbed down translation:

Vanessa: computer codes must be written by a pair of programmers to prevent only one person from understanding the code that is being made

Jon: best programmers carry the team. they are really productive compared to the rest. these best programmers work best alone, so the most productive programmers must work alone.

What i am getting: 1. if you are most productive→work alone

2. if you are most productive→work alone

we are looking to find something that violates these principles.

A: fact is they are average so must work together. consistent with rules so out

B: again, not most productive so must work together, consistent with rules so out

C: again, not most productive so must work together, consistent with rules so out

D: yolanda is most productive, so she must work alone. but this answer says she's working with someone. violates rule so this is the answer.

E: again, not most productive so must work together, consistent with rules so out.

i didnt know what spurious meanssss ughh

damn got all the hard questions right, then the lowest level question got me haha

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 was so confident with D

okay so how i got this right is because i treated the answer choices like the PSA lesson where its stimulus: application and AC: principle, while keeping in mind the conclusion which is

no one should take love (in the context of a marital vow) to refer to feelings

i chose the answer that allowed the principle to be illustrated that is relevant to the argument. So far D was the only one to decently do it.

A: imagining this principle, it's so vague. okay, so none of our feelings are within our control like even hate. and just to relate it to the stimulus, let's include the feeling of love. that's really as far as it goes. it doesn't even help our conclusion. plus this was already stated in the stimulus, so if that didn't help how is this better version of what the stimulus said going to further help? ]

B: a scenario im imagining here is i promise to love you. and b says people shouldnt make promises that is not within their control. so i promise to love you and this feeling of mine might change (this isn't in my control btw). greaattttt. but our conclusion is no one should take love (in the context of a marital vow) to refer to feelings. i dont see how this illustration connects it there, so i striked it out. if i wanted to make it work, i had to think of more unwarranted assumptions and thats bad.

C: im imagining Love can also mean another feeling, like jealousy? ok. connecting it to conclusion. i don't see how this applies. so bye.

D: imagining this is like i made a promise to you that i love you. this may change ofc because its not in my control. and the argument said this does not make sense. "this" refers to the promise. the argument said this is a promise to LOVE, so its almost used synonymously in this context. sooo this promise to love does not make sense because your feelings change. it's the only one that connects it to the conclusion. not the best answer, but does the job compared to the rest.

E: im imagining i promised to love you. but i didn't keep it, like i dont love you anymore. so it doesn't make sense. but the stimulus just merely says feelings are not in our control, not really talking about promises that aren't kept. we cant to prove again the conclusion that love shouldnt be used in the context of feelings. so E can't really show us that proper illustration.

this was my thought process. hope it helps.

C helps properly draw out the conclusion because it implicitly, meaning not explicitly stated, connects high inaccuracy with unreliability. This is common in the higher difficult questions.

It's also why JY says you shouldn't focus on a particular "formal" language, which in other words means, dont always expect to find the answers that you anticipate. Because there are different variants of how it could be said. Hence this example. Instead, understand the relationship. Once you understand the relationship, there are some answer choices that force you to reasonably make an implicit assumption and there is no other way but that.

C was the best answer because it was the only answer out of all the answers that connected it to the conclusion, BY FIRST ACKNOWLEDGING THAT REASONABLE IMPLICIT ASSUMPTION. the other answers had to force WAY MORE UNWARRANTED ASSUMPTIONS.

remember you can make reasonable assumptions. this is typical in the harder questions.

#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

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

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 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.