My mistakes are very often a misreading of what the stimulus actuallly is saying, and there are wrong answers that play on this. It is almost always smoking mirrors. Why? It is all they have. The stimulus by far is the most important part. This is not to say that they cannot deploy smoking mirrors and deceptive wording in the AC's — they do. But it is to say that they want you to read the stimulus and not see what is there. It seems like we read in a way that tries to just get the gist of what we read. We don't read closely. Why? It takes a serious amount of focus, effort and energy. It seems like human beings always want to conserve their energy and not give a full effort. It is only a full effort when a life is on the line. The issue is that people do not read critically. This is a big part of what they are testing in LR. The ability to understand the stimulus as it is on the page, not as you think what it is. How do you do this? You read extremely, I mean extremeley, critically.

The stimulus starts off talking about bees' vision but then it makes a sleight of hand and talks about the "type of vision" that bees have. This is not the same thing. This makes sense in the context of evolutionary biology (i.e., a certain type of vision evolved). This is a trick they always deploy. They start the stimulus with something but then change the wording (a deceptive sleight of hand). you have to watch out for this. Always examine closely the words they are using.

Once you see the stimulus for what it is, things get quite clear. You become like Neo in the matrix. But you have to stay calm. You must stay calm. You must understand that all you need is right there and to see the truth for what it is, not what you think it is. AC A basically says that this type of vision does not depend on perceiving an objects colors. So percieving color is not a necessary condition for this type of vision the bees have. Therefore, it is unlikely that bees vision developed evolutionary to percieve the colors.

The key to actually understanding this question is the "From this" in the conclusion. If it just concluded causality then you would look for alternate cause, cause no effect blah blah. But the "from this" saying I'm putting all my support on this study. And FROM THIS study I conclude causality. Now, that said, a great way to weaken the argument here is to attack the study because the conclusion is resting on the study.

Now, you might say that all the arguments on the LSAT are completely reliant on their premises. This might be true but the thing is that some conclusions stand in and of themselves and other conclusions are literally saying that FROM THIS, or IF THIS IS TRUE. These are two different conclusions:

The ball is green.

From this, the ball is green.

For the first one, saying the ball is blue will weaken for sure.

For the second one, the LSAT is going to hit at whatever the from this is.

For anyone having trouble, don't overthink it. Basically it's saying:

X causes bad thing.

X also causes another bad thing.

So if you don't do x, you will have a good thing, which is basically the other end of the bad thing.

The correct AC is subtle but it basically points out that X is not the only cause of this bad thing. So, just because you refrain from x, it does not mean that this bad thing goes away and you have the good. It hits at the assumption of the argument which is that comparing oneself is pretty much the only cause of bad thing, so much so that if you refrain from comparing yourself, you will have the, on the whole, the good thing.

A tip is to first get the structure of the argument down. Then, see if there is any new element or idea on the conclusion. It must be the case that the argument is assuming that the premises somehow justify this new element. The flaw should point at this. This will make POE easier for you because you will look at the Trap AC and say ok maybe it does do that but it is not concluding a thing that hinges on this.

These ACs show common trap Strengthen ACs:

A) has no bearing on argument whatsoever AC

B) AC hits at a different subject

C) Yes Strengthens, hits at the assumption in the argument

D) Weaken or Opposite AC

E) Restating the premise AC.

This question's twin: PT 62 S4 Q14

This is a pattern to nail. You must understand when the argument is one by analogy.

7sager: Describing the analogy does not call into question the analogy. Calling into question the analogy rather requires differentiating between the variables that link the analogy, and why the supposed analogy cannot be applied to the given situation

For Q3: MANY IMPLIES SOME! SOME CAN MEAN JUST 1! They love to deploy that word "many" in trap ACs - especially for weaken and strengthen qs. Intuitively, when you think of "many" you think of multiple. They play on this intuition. Be careful of the word "many"!!

Can't believe I did all that over thinking when it was just a simple supporter assumption.

B is wrong because the conclusion does not mention anything about the influence or consequences of spraying being reduced.. All it mentions is that the genetically engineered crops must be more widespread. Spraying could stay the same as far as the argument is concerned.

I'm clearly doing something wrong

The explanations for why B is wrong in this thread are great. An additional reason as to why B is wrong is that it emphasizes a different subject. What do I mean by this?

The analogy talks about benefitting consumers and then the conclusion posits that it will benefit park visitors. AC B says that privatization made things bad for the "industry". Not only does B not hit the points of the analogy in the stimulus, it actually hits at a different subject. Quite subtle. Lesson: Always consider the subjects being talked about in the stimulus.

This might help:

Bentham argued that evidence should be considered. The alternative is preferring ignorance over knowledge. Yet, the author says, some types of evidence or in some instances, bringing in the evidence actually contributes negatively and is likely to produce a false jury verdict rather than a true one. The author brings in a modern example. Then the author elaborates on this discussion.

saying: Bentham basically concedes the point that sometimes you have to exclude evidence because competing social interests or values might override the desire for relevant evidence. (Bentham seems to put this in the context of granting exclusions such as sacramental confessions).

The author then asks:

But THEN, why not protect conversations between social workers and blah?

why would the author bring up this question? No, it is not to say oh there are many things you can apply this too. If that was the case, the author would have provided a couple of examples. The author asks this question in order to show that the non-exclusion principle has questionable application in a certain case. Like ok, you are granting it to this got it, but how about in this instance. They kind of trick you because the discussion of the non-exclusion principle is fundamentally in the preceding paragraph.

what a piece of shit question. There is no way in hell the argument is assumng ANY pricing practice. Seriously?

I knew it was E but then I thought maybe they are tricking me. I ended up choosing E, but I could have done this way more faster if I had less suspicion of a trick. Why do I do this to myself?

Wow AC A is such a sophisticated trap.

My mistake here was reading the argument and thinking too much about spotting a cookie cutter patter as opposed to just considering the shit show of an argument for a second. When I read the stimulus, I thought: Oh, the company president is assuming that an engineering degree has causal influence on being a good sales rep.

I think that is a fine thing to think. Upon review, I just read the stimulus and thought, lol what if it is just a coincidence. Anyway, during the timed section, they know that they already put a couple time sinks in the section and you are probably pushing yourself at this point. They put AC A, that seems like it is weakening that causal assumption.

But you have to notice that the subject of the stim is most of the BEST sales reps and AC A just says some of the sales rep.

AC B is great.

It basically says that look most of the people people hired as sales rep have an engineering degree and no sales experience. This weakens the causal assumption that it is the engineering degree making the difference. It also weakens because the other side (i.e., people who have no engineering degree but have sales experience) is not represented properly

I think another reason why C is wrong is because the conclusion is talking about the census. The survey is not the same thing as the census. The method for conducting the survey was DL and post office but the census takes into account all residents regardless of age. So when C says that many people moving in fail to notify DL bureau or post office, this has nothing to do with the conclusion because the conclusion is talking about the census lol...

That said, it's actually attacking the validity of the survey itself, like JY said. Therefore, it weakens a premise of the argument. I had gotten mixed up and thought that C had some implication on the conclusion.

It's so fucking simple upon longer review. Sometimes, honestly, we are our own worst enemy. We psyche ourselves out when we can't figure out a question. We give it like this air of importance when it does not stick the first time. We flag and we come back to it like OK IM READY TO TAKE THIS ON. But this is the wrong mentality, and I say this from experience. The thought process that "this is a tough question with such convuluted langauge. I really have to decipher this. Fuck this is a time sink. I'm already wasting time. I have to rush through. No ok this is not working. Flag and skip." This type of thinking is doomed. From now on:

When you encounter a stimulus, or even an AC, that you are having trouble understanding the meaning of what is said do not panic. Do not curse the test takers. Do not get mad that you are going to get this question wrong. Do not get mad that you wasted time on it. You must keep your fucking composure -- at all costs. It's easy to do good at LR when you know question after question but what happens when you are truly tested. You get hit with something that you can't quite get your head around. What is the right reaction or approach here?

Take a confident and focused breath. And go about flagging it. When you come back, you are going to read the stimulus FULLY, all the way to the end, TWICE. This will work.

Typical typical typical. This is a recurring pattern. There are two groups of people. One group uses X the other group uses Y. X is better in A than Y so X is better.

One way they can construct a correct AC for weaken or strengthen Q types is to deal with the the X is better than Y. for weaken, they can put something that renders A not the most sutiable standard of evaluation for comparison. Or they can shit on X a little or build up Y.

But another angle of approach for the test taker is to hit at the two groups to begin with. Any time two groups are brought into the picture, there are an endless number of assumptions about them. This questions uses this angle. While reading, you reading the first sentence and you assume that the two groups are the same. But this AC is saying, hey what if they are not. This would weaken the argument.

Study this pattern. That first sentence of the stimulus is not there by accident. They know exactly what they are doing.

The whole question hinges on the word "flourishes". If you caught that, everything makes sense. The stimulus is talking about how human settlement in previously uninhabited areas endangers wild life. But, here we have this bird that FLOURISHES in areas that people have settled. AC C does not explain any flourishing. E does a much better job at that.

Same exact thing happened to me. "Not dispense cosmic justice" is antithetical to "dispense with cosmic justice".

The fact that we both got -1 yet we go the main conclusion backwards....idk

Am I right to assume that this kind of assumption would not have to be made on modern tests?#help

When I read the stimulus, I was like what in the world could possibly be the flaw. Then I read AC A and it clicked. Beautiful question and interesting flaw.

My emotions and absurd reaction got the best of my composure and logic. :(

Took me about 40min but it finally clicked. Hope this helps someone.

The author is saying in the stimulus that the lawmakers are in danger of repeating these patterns. Therefore, they are IGH. But this answer is pointing out that being IGH does not necessarily follow if a trend or promotion of repeating patterns is occurring. AHA! Finally it stuck! Finally it stuck!

The stimulus is basically saying

Premise: A->B

Conclusion: if this is true then L is A. (if this is true = assume that the above premise is true)

Premise: Whatever L is promoting is B.

It is affirming the consequent error.

A->B

B

--

A

This is like the most basic error in Logic.

But why did I not spot it?

You are not keeping track of ideas, especially when they repeat, and you are not considering their relationship to one another as you read.

Also, you must be clear on the conclusion and what ideas the author is deciding to put in the conclusion. This always helps. Is it a new element in the conclusion? Is it a repeating idea? Does a sufficient or necessary condition repeated earlier come up in the conclusion? Is it a definite conclusion? Is there a key word in the conclusion? Is there a non-restrictive modifier in the conclusion? WHO and WHAT is the conclusion talking about, exactly?

I can't believe I got this right. And I knew what the hell it was trying to do to.

Ok I see it now. It is very clear. None of her friends is a subset of everyone, it is not actually everyone. So, I am going to search for an argument structure like this.

Group A  B

--

Subset of A  B

Why is D wrong?

D is like this:

Group A  B

Subset of B  A

E, the correct answer has the same flawed structure:

Group A  B

Subset of A  B