@ANP Think about humans, lets say the argument is "in order to get skin cancer you have to have skin." then trying to weaken that argument by saying, "well I have skin and I dont have skin cancer." It does not really prove anything, just because you don't currently have skin cancer does not prove that having skin is not a determinent of getting skin cancer.

Or in LSAT speak, the stem is arguing that having a larger nuclei is a necessary condition for getting disease X, D is simply proving that having a larger nuclei is not a sufficient condition for getting disease X, so it doesnt really weaken the conclusion.

@Lillia555 Why is gpa on a 4.33 scale? my undergrad is a 4.0 scale, and an A- is worth the same as an A+, do i seriously have to compete on the GPA with people whos undergrad GPA system allowed them to go above 4.0?

I can tell you for certain something is wrong with it, for example, when I put in a 178 and 3.75 GPA, Texas A&M is a "target school" but when I change the metrics to a 180 and 3.77, Texas A&M becomes a "reach."

This question relies on you taking all statements as true regardless of the feasibility or practicality of them happening in real life.

B: if many high paid jobs were moved out of a region, then it is likely the average wage in that region would DECREASE, this answer forces us to make a brash assumption that even though many high paying jobs left a region, the other jobs wages in that region increased enough to make up for those leaving and more.

@binks I now see that they examined the diets before, but it appears that they measured the enzyme while they had the cancer, I take back what I said D is obviously the correct answer.

This does not make sense, the argument does not need to factor in wether or not cancer causes low levels of the enzyme, the group just recently developed the cancer, and they are examining the diets of the the groups in the 5 years prior. They did not have cancer yet, so it does not overlook the possibility, because it is irrelevant. Why would they need to factor that in if they are objectively looking into the diet of the groups BEFORE they had cancer.

@binks I guess the quote "the party's increasing cautiousness, born of a desire to appeal to moderates" is what was the key statement in this passage. Also, C is talking about highest levels of government, and the passage says the popular front de-emphasized involvement in LOCAL african-american politics.

absolutely disagree with this question. The passage states that the third period was extreme, but it never says the popular front was less extreme.

I do not understand how his can be inferred, considering the article is directly citing evidence about how they were able to find out wether or not a superior performer with extensive training has excceptional innate talent or if it is due to another factor. the entire passage is based upon finding this exact thing out.

I struggled with this one because I thought that just because competition would be less, there would still be competition, so therefore it would still benefit the park visitors, just to a lesser degree.

However I now see that E is the best answer , and the question does not ask us to destroy the argument, just weaken it.

@nnkNewYork I agree with you, I am planning to forget this question ever existed because I think it contradicts most LSAT questions. If I said "A bird flies home" you cannot logically assume from that sentence that every bird flies home. Just a bad question in my opinion

"Rule out" is a synonym of "exclude," when you think of it that way it makes more sense.

However, "exclude" and "rule out" are not usually used in practice as synonyms, which is why this answer was worded poorly. D is correct, but this is just a stupid question, while technically correct, it is still stupid because literally no one uses the word that way.

@ruri623 It lowkey is, the fact that they have done comparative analyses of traditional languages directly implies that they have already discovered those languages. If someone said:

"Linguists have conducted many comparative analyses of traditional languages from various regions and eras so therefore we know Human communication is a universal phenomenon that has existed across different civilizations over time"

and you tried to argue by saying:

"that proves nothing, just because they did some comparative analyses on language from various regions and eras does not mean language from various regions and eras exists."

You would be laughed at because how can you do the analyses without the languages existing.

If the sentence included "We know" at the beginning and "because" at the beginning of the second sentence, its clearly an argument. So is the omission of these three words the only thing preventing this from being an argument?

Papi explicitly stated "they only have to sniff the air en route and/OR at the site to know the direction of home."

Therefore, Papi's argument goes something like this:

a. a pigeon who can sniff the air en route

AND/OR

b. can sniff the air at the release site

CAN

C. find its way home

the "correct' answer, to me, is actually evidence that his argument is correct. The pigeon in that case could not smell home at all, but according to Papi, that is not necessary, so I do not see, how something that is irrelevant to an argument, can weaken it.

That is like saying to get to an island, one must have a compass, and then trying to weaken that argument by saying "even people who could not physically see the island could still get there."

@Blurred_Lines I agree with you 100%. Papi explicitly stated "they only have to sniff the air en route and/OR at the site to know the direction of home."

Therefore, Papi's argument goes something like this:

a. a pigeon who can sniff the air en route

AND/OR

b. can sniff the air at the release site

CAN

C. find its way home

the "correct' answer, to me, is actually evidence that his argument is correct. The pigeon in that case could not smell home at all, but according to Papi, that is not necessary, so I do not see, how something that is irrelevant to an argument, can weaken it.

That is like saying to get to an island, one must have a compass, and then trying to weaken that argument by saying "even people who could not physically see the island could still get there."