There is ABSOLUTELY nowhere in the passage did the author suggest that firing everyone else is an "equally supported" option!! The author gives no support for this at all! You can say this is at most a possible option, not an equally supported option. How ridiculous!

I believe B makes more sense. Giving Vernon the job back is a sufficient action to maintain consistency, but the author mistakes such a sufficient behaviour to be a necessary behaviour and thought this is the only possible option, while a second option also exists. So the two "behaviours" in the answer refer to the same behaviour of giving Vernon the job back, but the author mistakes its properties. But, after doing so many PTs, I know by now that LSAT does not allow such an explanation for some reasons, "the behaviours" in the necessity-sufficiency confusion question have to be two different behaviours. But I still make this same mistake because it just makes sense to me.

Totally. Even if cheetahs do not need camouflage when hunting, it still doesn't explain why they have spots while their relatives in the same areas do not. If all but one cats in an area has one characteristics, it is probably because there is an evolutionary advantage. The passage makes us assume that (1) the advantage is totally due to their need for stealth when catching prey. Well, why? Why is it not for camouflage from its predators, or absortion/reflection of sunlight? Secondly, even if plain coats offer no survival advantage, why are cheetahs in spotted coats? Did they evolve from cats with spotted coats in the first place, and retain this pattern because they do not need to switch to spotted coats? Why is it not the opposite, that cheetahs originally have plain coat but switched to spotted coats? Here comes the second assumption: (2) cheetahs' spotted coat was inherited from its ancestors, rather than a product of survival fitness. Otherwise, the stimulus fails to explain what the unique survival fitness is that makes cheetahs stand out from their relatives and neighbours.

For 24 B, i thought "unease" means something like dissatisfaction/unfortunateness about, the lack of, "musicians' role in preserving social structure", because they focus on personal experiences and lose their cultural roots. But the definition of unease is anxious, and I don't think the author was anxious about it.

Contradictory views (X)

Contradictory positions (maybe ✓)

I agree with your analysis that AC E is unsatisfactory. But I believe AC D is wrong because by saying "total vacation amount has a larger impact on relaxation than total numbers of vacations", it implicitly admits that the number of vacation still has a positive effect (or at least fails to show that number of vacations does not have a positive effect). So, given that both long one-time vacation and multiple shorter vacations have a same total vacation time, then the extra numbers of shorter vacations gives it an extra positive effect and justify it over one long vacation. I think JY fails to identify this important point.

But didn't that "many great scientific discoveries were motivated by curiosity ALONE" contradict the principle "investigation into a private matter is justified only if it is done for the advancement of scientific knowledge"? It is fair to assume Varela believes great scientific discoveries are justified, and even if they are also done for the satisfaction of curiosity. I guess AC B is only wrong because AC A exists. It will be the right answer if AC A is taken out.

Or maybe we can reject AC B on its use of "validity," which in symbolic logic refers to the logical structure, and Pulford argument does not contain a logical error. Maybe it should be swapped to "soundness."

Well, maybe LSAT does this to filter out those who took high school physics and chemistry in their native countries rather than Western countries.

A minor issue with AC D is that it equates "produces as much energy" with "produce energy equally effectively." Maybe it produces the same energy from blue and red lights, but it costs the bacteria more time or resources to do it for blue, making it less effective than creating energy from red.

I thought "not even close" implies "significantly lower", and a sample size of three is already large enough to infer the significance is statistical. Because cars are standardized products assembled from parts produced on assembly lines, possibly by robot arms. If one product I bought has a defect, then maybe it's about the sample size, but all 3 have? I guess as a consumer I just can't complain about the quality even if I already bought 3 pieces of their durable goods. I will say the problem is not about sample size but an unrepresentative sample.

Also, if you say AC C is wrong because it involves no comparison, but only that a technique is used for one of the groups. Then isn't AC E culpable for the same, or even worse, reason? It only says doing exercise is good, but why assume physical workers do more exercise throughout their days? What if they are exhausted in their work so they just sit on their couches after work and during weekends, while office workers hit the gym or go hiking and get physical exercises more efficiently?

For me, someone who has a herniated disk, AC E just seems IMPOSSIBLE. Any considerable weight and stress on my lower back, either from exercise or work (or simply standing/walking), would cause so much pain and worsen my condition. It's just unfathomable to say physical workers benefit from stressing their lower back, not to mention the assumption that equates physical work (bending over your back to lift heavy stuff) and exercise (ideally, physical therapy). This question is probably written by someone who doesn't have a herniated disk, so bad.

Finished all other questions and had 7 mins left solely for this, and got the right answer in the final 30 seconds lol

AC E is unsatisfactory, because "more than 3 apartments" is a subset of "more than 1 apartment," and the author considered "more than 1 apartment" so it's unfair to say they did not considered "more than 3 apartments." It should be made to "author failed to consider the possibility that over half of the houses can have only 1 apartment."

I chose AC D, because I thought that "most houses have more than 1 apartment" is a sufficient condition for "twice as many apartments as houses", and the author mistakenly thought the former is necessary, so infer the truth of the former from the latter. But upon reflection, I realized that "most more than 1 apartment" is actually insufficient, it needed to be "all more than 1 apartment."

Yeah, the explanation was so desperate to confuse "the ability to recognize emotions" and "causes of emotions." Why do I care if it was biology or culture that caused people to be assertive? Consider another example, pale skin is largely biologically determined, and pale skin is considered a sign of prestige in some cultures, okay, does the former supports the claim that associating skin tone to prestige is biologically determined? How? It does not matter if chimpanzees do it or not, the logical structure itself is invalid. Two things in two populations having a same cause has nothing to do with proving the evaluation of it in two populations are identical and biological. Even if something is culturally rooted, maybe we can still evaluate it biologically. Maybe some tribes use snakes as their symbol to deter enemies, and their enemies, even having no prior understanding of that culture, are still frightened by the snake symbol due to a genetic disposition to a fear of snake-like subjects.

I believe AC E is more persuasive, because if it is made up of different people, then it is more likely that the images used contain people of different cultures, rather than only an unrepresentative sample from one singular culture, which means the successful identification in the study may be limited to respondents' association with a certain cultural group.

For Q24, I thought judges are the third parties...because the first two parties are the defendant and plaintiff.

True, Europe and NA have a 75-80% urbanization rates, but you wouldn't say 80% of the mass/cities here are "major cities."

Got this right but still think this is a bad question because the stimulus/critics failed to specify the baseline for comparison and conclusion. If what the executive says is true, then assuming easiness to use a device decreases the dangers associated with using that device (which is a very reasonable assumption, in the same way we assume the complicatedness of use will increase the danger), we know that (1) people always use communication devices, ordinarily at the danger level of, let's say, 10; and (2) if they use the device provided by the executive's automobiles, then the level of danger will be reduced to 5.

So a drop of 5 in level of dangerness is, to me, a very valid reason for executive's claim. If an adoption of something make the whole world safer, it seems disingenuous to say it is dangerous, because without it, the world will be more dangerous. The baseline of comparison in this case, should be the ordinary situation of 5, as stated by the executive. But of course, LSAT wants us to take the baseline of 0--no danger at all, so if it is still above 0, then it is dangerous, regardless of their efficacy in reducing danger. This assumed criterion/baseline is really bad. It's like, A says staying at home is dangerous, B says going outside is even more dangerous and we have to either stay home or go outside, so A's point is misguided. I will say this is a good argument, otherwise everything in the world is dangerous and the word danger loses its practical usage.

I agree, AC E is bad because we were told that if multiple answers sound legitimate for a main point question, then the one that can serve the conclusion from other AC should be chosen. But AC E sounds more like an introduction/premise rather than a conclusion of either the passages or other AC.

But "stray off course" sounds like a very objective matter that can be electronically detected and documented. Why are we to assume pilots can, in their reports, regularily lie about it without being caught? Can a plane hit a bird and the pilot just says in their report that they didn't hit a bird? The equation of self-report and unreliability is really weird, and seems to stem from ideological presuppositions.

AC C doesn't look right because it is in sufficient form, but the stimulus is in necessary. But necessity and sufficiency can be swapped so that superficial form is not what matters here.

Wait, AC E cannot possibly be correct. It only stipulates that Sal only made one illegitimate offer to Veronica, but it does not address whether Veronica made any offers to Sal. So it does not rule out the possibility that Veronica had previously made another legitimate offer to Sal and Sal accepted, which constitutes the existence of a valid contract between them.

This is unbelievably stupid, questions like this should aim for contradictions, rather than relying on unstated assumptions that support positive cases. At least it should be changed to "there is no valid contract initiated by Sal between them."

I guess there was no mention of "traditional techniques" applied? The traditions mentioned referred to materials, and maybe art style, but not techniques. Maybe she needed to use new techniques for new materials.

As a non-native speaker, the moment I saw "lacquer," which I didn't understand, I knew I was screwed. I completed the whole question set assuming it was some kind of sculpture.

The conclusion of "They are mistaken" refers to their belief that computer program encapsulates... is sufficient for making an AI, not necessary. Even if there are other ways of making AI, this does not challenge the sufficiency, but only the not mentioned neccessity.

I also chose B originally. It is actually a sensible answer if this argument takes place in the real world. The author generalizes from the one case that Weingartern is against event A due to logic B, that Weingartern has to be against all cases involving logic B, but it is possible Weingarten is against A also for reasons other than B, and B alone is not sufficient in leading to an objection.

But, the thing is, in the real life, we expect consistency. For example, if a politician lies, we will say it discredit their points. But in fact, as Phil 101 suggests, a speaker's characters and standpoints on other cases is irrelevant from the one argument they provide in this case. An argument can be correct even if it is voiced by a terrible person. So even if Weingartern breaks an assumed consistent rule (that placing animals in bad environment sufficiently leads to rejection of it), this would not be a reason to reject their argument.