The shareholder and stakeholder theories aren't arguing about the goals of business. Both agree a CEO should maximize profits. All the stakeholder theory is saying is that acting in moral interest can achieve this goal.

@azurijonathan863 you don't need to know laws. All you need to do is assume that it's not a law.

How do we compare the level of support? In both b and c there were logical assumptions to make that were needed to be true.

How am I supposed to know what preponderance means?

Why can't this paragraph be arguing for illustrations? It's explainimg why they're better, cause they don't confuse the jury.

D should be wrong cause it talked about the way free will was perceived in Greek society, which implys the general view. But the view that this playwrighter had doesn't need to reflect the views of Greek society? While the passage might be proof that this view was emerging in Greek society, it may still not reflect the view of Greek society as a whole.

D should be wrong cause it talked about the way free will was percepted in Greek society, which implys the general view. But the veiw that this playwrighter had doesn't need to reflect the views of Greek society? While it might be proof a view that was emerging in Greek society, it can still not reflect the view of Greek society as a whole.

@asherrose maybe (c) doesn't say it's more likely that $ -> laptop, just that the evidence is also consistent with it.

(c) says the argument should have realized it's more likely that getting payed more caused them to have a laptop than vice versa. How are we supposed to know it's more likely?

Its pretty simple, its only casual if the cause of something is explained. Saying "people who smoke die early" is not saying why they die.

@F In Chatroom. The humanities are my worst subject, it's super boring and I don't care about it at all.

The passage says experts want to add digitalizing to the current list of prohibitions. So whatever the current list permits (copying for research) will also be allowed with the new things added to the list. Therefore A is correct, because unless the experts believe in also adding an extra prohibition for research on digitalized books then the law permits research.

@mh212529 I thought "private research" includes research and private study, because all studys are research. And the "or" isn't clear that "private" isn't also transferring to research, so it's possible that the passage means only private research is permitted and not public.

"Even if we upgrade our IT infrastructure", can't this be a premise? Since upgrading the infrastructure won't help, we need to incorporate other strategies. This is helping the conclusion (of why we need other strategies) not going against it.

"Poseidon is furious, for it was his temple that was desecrated." Why is this an argument and not an explanation? Maybe we aren't trying to prove posideon was angry, just explain why.

Is it correct that on the LSAT, what makes something a conclusion is the author's intent to prove it, rather than just the logical relationship between statements?

In other words, does a word like "therefore" not just indicate a conclusion, but actually create the conclusion by demonstrating the author's intent to argue for that claim?

For example, without "therefore" or similar indicators, a passage might just be presenting facts with no argumentative structure—even if we could theoretically invent premises that would support one of those facts.

Do the pairs have to be in order, or can the first part be passage B's opinion, and the 2nd part be passage A's?

What threw me off was the passage was making a big assumption, that the only way to significantly improve soil was to plant these crops. I thought the answer would have to validate this assumption.

I picked c. I didn't realize that we know he wasn't already running late, since he came "a few minutes late" which is less than 15 minutes.

@Robert Carlson the large gatherings could have been cancelled because people were sick and didn't go out to create the gathering. Even though we have to add in an assumption that people got sick, we also have to add in an assumption to a, that they didn't make a new medicine.

Doesn't this strengthen the argument? The argument says watching yourself makes you more motivated than watching others. The twin study shows that watching someone else (even someone who looks like you) makes you overreport how much you did that activity. Therefore, in the exercise study, the second group overreported their exercise amount - meaning they actually exercised even less than they claimed. This would make the gap between the groups even larger, strengthening the conclusion.

The tiger argument is missing the premise that aggressive animals aren't suitable as pets