? Type - Weakening

Bottom Up / Argument

Translation:

We have two groups -

Group 1: higher than normal levels of H in their blood

Group 2: people with normal levels of H in their blood

People in Group 1 are more likely to get Alzheimer's disease than are people in Group 2. Therefore, we can reduce the likelihood of developing Alzheimer's by having people in Group 2 eat Vitamin B, which breaks down H into byproducts that have nothing to do with Alzheimer's.

ANALYSIS: I completely read over this being a correlation/causation argument. It does not need to be explicitly stated for it to be implied. The author states that higher levels of H are correlated with developing Alzheimer's, then assuming that the higher levels of H cause Alzheimer's cause he states we need a recommendation. To weaken causation we have four options:

A causes B

B causes A

A happens and B does not happen

B happens and A does not happen.

We are looking for an answer choice that fits one of these molds.

A - No, this answer choice can be translated into "At least one patient has normal levels of H." Okay, but this is something that we know. We know that people with 2x levels of H are more likely to develop Alzheimer's but this does not mean that people with normal levels cannot develop Alzheimer's.

B - This is a trap answer choice. Saying that Vitamin B can have negative consequences but this does not weaken the idea that consuming it would reduce Alzheimer's

C - Okay, but do we know what form the vitamins will be consumed in? This requires us to assume they will be taken in supplemental form but we do not know whether this is or is not true

D - Relatives? C'mon, this was not mentioned in our argument so definitely does not weaken the ways in which our premises do or do not support our conclusion

E - Yes, this weakens the argument because it states no, B causes A. Alzheimer's causes the levels of H to rise, H does not cause Alzheimer's which completely ruins our argument because then our recommendation becomes unwarranted

? Type = Flaw/Descriptive Weakening

Top-Down/Argument

Translation: It's not true that a significant amount of music on the internet is made from people copying other people's beats. We know this because 99% of people who use other people's beats to make their music do not publish it on the internet.

ANALYSIS - At first it took me a bit to see this, but this argument is flawed because it is not considering the power of the 1%. A) 1% of all the internet users would still be a significantly large group of people, and if they did this, there would be this type of music on the internet. With this interpretation, A would be the correct answer

D - Answer choice D is incorrect because the author actually denies the existence of this assumption. With the premises he provides he actually is not making this assumption, he is arguing for the opposite

? Type - Evaluate the Argument

Strategy: This video actually reminded me of JY's strategy and I absolutely love it so I want to reinforce it. An answer choice would be helpful in evaluating the argument if the extreme ends of the answer choice either strengthened or weakened the argument (0% or 100%).

Translation: Over the course of next year, we will be replacing all street signs in Gainesville with new street signs that increase readability. But since nobody is Gainesville is complaining about the current signs, this would be a colossal waste of time and money.

ANALYSIS: The author concludes that replacing the signs would be a colossal waste of time and money since nobody is complaining about the readability. Okay, sure. What factor either would or not help us in making this conclusion?

A - We don't care about the features of the signs. If I were to tell you, "Oh, the color will be changed for increased readability." Does that make our argument any stronger or weaker? No, so it's not needed for this argument

B - I read over manufacturing and fell for this trip initially. This doesn't matter. Again, plug in the extremes. The signs are not considerably more to manufacture than the current signs, does this help us in determining if the installation is a colossal waste? Not really, it requires assumptions. Okay so not more to manufacture but what if shipping and freight costs are so high that is a colossal waste? This has already led to an out of scope conversation, making this not not necessary to evaluate this argument

C - Yes, this answer choice is subtle but nails it. Plug in the extremes, if all signs are replaced each year due to ordinary maintenance, then yes this is helpful. This weakens the argument, it wouldn't be a colossal waste. If no signs were replaced each year, then yes this also strengthens the idea of it being a colossal waste.

D - No, we don't care with other cities do.

E - The word "expert" means nothing on the LSAT. WTF would an expert do in this situation? Who would the expert be?

? Type = Flaw/Descriptive Weakening

Translation: Popular book states that success is the result of good luck. But this is ridiculous, anyone who has studied successful people knows that success requires a lot of hard work.

Analysis: The argument is concluding that the point of view of the book is ridiculous. The book states successful → luck, yet the author rejects this and states success → hard work. To be honest, I found this question pretty difficult because I could not spot a flaw. The author denies (successful → luck), so he state success is not sufficient for luck. But he then states success is a sufficient condition for another condition, whereas the success should be the necessary condition.

A - Here through POE. The author denies success being sufficient but then goes to state a situation in which success is the sufficient condition....

B - No, the author does not appeal to authority and say this view is superior or "the best." He just states that one is ridiculous

C - No, this is not a circular argument

D - No, this would be causation confusion. Does not say "Hard work causes Success, so Success is caused by Hard Work." The argument would need to look something like this for this answer choice to be correct

E - No, not attacking the source. Not an Ad Hominem

Question Type - Strengthening

Translation: The greater the area of Earth's surface covered with snow and ice, the cooler the global atmosphere is likely to become. Earth's global atmosphere is cooled by the reflection of sunlight into the atmosphere and snow and ice tend to reflect more snowlight than do landmass and water without snow and ice.

ANALYSIS - The author is concluding that the more snow and ice we have, the cooler the global atmosphere will become because snow and ice reflect more sunlight than do land and water without snow and ice, and reflection cools the global atmosphere. This is a pretty ironclad argument and I struggled trying to figure out what would actually make this argument stronger. The comparison is that snow and ice reflect more sunlight than do land and water without snow and ice, so the Earth's atmosphere will be cooler with the more snow and ice we have. I would want to weaken this by seeing if there was a way for the Earth to become even cooler aside from snow and ice and blocking that. Let's see

A - No, we don't care what is required for the formation of snow and ice. This does not strengthen the relationship between our premises and our conclusion

B - This would actually weaken the argument, because if there are other factors then we don't know if more snow and ice would lead to increased cooling of the atmosphere

C - Yes, this strengthens the argument. It's a classic blocker. There is no way that land and water would lead to a cooler atmosphere because they heat rather than cool, which strengthens the idea that snow and ice would actually lead to the cooler atmosphere

D - This answer choice is so so so attractive and I originally picked it. It's wrong because a) "the atmosphere" could be the atmosphere of outer space, Mar's atmosphere, it does not strictly mention the global atmosphere so we have to assume we are talking about the same atmosphere, which isn't good. If we were to operate under the assumption that the atmosphere is the same thing, fine. But this mentions a way in which it is heated, is the way something is heated the same way something is cooled? We don't know, just because it is heated this way doesn't mean it would necessarily be cooled this way, so this doesn't strengthen our argument either

E - Soil? This has nothing to do with our support structure. Get out of here

This is a PSA question, which acts like a Strengthening question.

Translation - Residents of Austin should not consider the loss of agriculture in their society to be an economic tragedy. When Austin was used for agriculture, it was economically depressed, but now with the high-tech industry bubble popping up in Austin, many more people are employed and the wages received are higher than when the people were farmers.

ANALYSIS - The author is concluding that the residents of Austin should not consider this transgression to be an economical tragedy. We are looking for something that would strengthen why they should feel that the transition to tech was not a bad thing, does not have to be that they think it was a good thing.

A - This AC states that farming is becoming increasingly efficient. This answer choice is one-sided and doesn't account for why the residents of the town should feel a certain way. It is one-sided and does not do the job of what we are looking for.

B - The presence of natural security makes this wrong. We don't know if the residents of this locale necessarily care about national security, and we cannot assume this, making B wrong.

C - This is a comparative statement. A rural way of life is being compared to economic prosperity, and the answer choice states that they do not value a rural way of life as much, making economic prosperity the winner. If the LSAT were a nice person, this answer choice would say, "Residents of the locale value economic prosperity more than a rural way of life." This strengthens the argument because it shows why they should feel that the movement was a good thing then, rather than a tragedy.

D - If you replace the word many with at least one here, we get "At least one resident of this locale has an annual income that is twice what he/she was receiving when this was a primary agriculture locale." This doesn't justify why all residents of this locale should feel a certain way then, it could only apply to one person

E - We have o idea if a loss of a family farm even occurred so this answer choice requires assumptions, making it wrong

This is a Necessary Assumption question, so we are looking for something that absolutely must be true for our argument to stand/proceed.

Translation: When students receive constructive criticism from a computer, they are more likely to respond negatively than if the criticism came from a human being. Since the acceptance of criticism requires a positive response, students are more likely to learn from criticism by humans rather than from computers.

ANALYSIS - The argument concludes that students are more likely to learn from criticism they receive from humans than computers, and it supports this conclusion by stating acceptance requires a positive response to the criticism. So, if they are more likely to learn from the criticism of humans and accept → a positive response, the author is assuming that students are more likely to learn from feedback in which they respond positively to / accept.

A - Yes, this exactly matches our analysis.

I was between A and E here but E is wrong because it states criticism generated by computers is as favorable or less favorable then feedback generated by humans. This answer choice a) requires us to assume that favorable would mean the same thing as accepted and b) does not tell us why our conclusion must follow. Even if this were the case, why would we learn from the feedback from the humans? This A.C. doesn't handle that which is why it is wrong

Question Type: Weakening

Bottom-Up / Argument

- I identified the wrong conclusion in this argument which led to me ultimately getting the question wrong. The main conclusion is that consumer demand for farmed-salmon would have an ecological benefit because it would increase the number of wild salmon roaming freely.

ANALYSIS: If the market demand for farm-raised salmon were to increase, there would be an effort to keep them alive. This can potentially be a bad thing. What if increased demand for farm-raised salmon takes away essentials for the wild-salmon? You could weaken the conclusion by simply stating, well what if it has another effect? What if increased demand for farm-raised salmon actually leads to a decrease or plateau in the number of wild-raised salmon?

A - this touches on this exactly. Farm-raised salmon actually eat the fish that wild salmon attempt to eat, if we are putting our efforts into meeting the demand for farm-raised salmon, we will prioritize feeding them. At the same time, you will have an increasing population of wild salmon that is missing a food source, so this would weaken that actually the number of wild salmon would not increase

E - E was attractive because I thought we were looking to weaken a different part of the conclusion. This answer choice requires assumptions because we don't know how they would be transmissed to humans, and we are not looking to weaken ecological reasons. Looking to weaken the increase in numbers conclusion

? Type = SA

Bottom-Up / Argument

Translation/Diagram:

Methods + Effort → B | Contrapositive via Demorgan's Law = B → Methods or Effort

The argument then goes on to conclude Methods by providing B as a premise. However, we know that B can yield two conditions via Demorgan's Law, so to assure that method is the end result, we can tie back Effort to Methods to assure we end up there, which is what A.C. A does

B is incorrect because it is a reversal of what we are looking for, this denies our relationship but does not end up at Methods which is what we must do to make this argument ironclad

Question Type: Method of Reasoning

Top-Down / Debate

Translation: P - Bone flutes dating to the Paleolithic era are the earliest evidence of music, so music must have started during that time. G - Not necessarily, bone flutes are archaeologically durable whereas other artifacts used for music are not much so. It could be that other artifacts are older but just weathered away.

ANALYSIS: This is a debate, so we are looking for a controversy. The controversy here is that whether bone flutes is evidence that they started in the upper paleolithic. G points out in P's argument that there could be other factors that severely weaken his argument. Analogy - Dinosaur tracks were first found during the Upper Paleolithic era, so dinosaurs must have been born into existence then. Not necessarily, what if other signs of dinosaur tracks have faded away but were from earlier eras. This is not conclusive

A - Yes, exactly. P is saying that the evidence you are relying on is not enough to justify your conclusion.

B -- I changed my answer to B on BR but it is not right. B would look something like this - G: Bones flutes don't date back to the Upper Paleolithic, they date back to the Mesozic. G is not denying the truth of the premise but mentioning something P is failing to consider

I think I brought in too much outside information when considering this question and the upcoming election (eek)

Question Type - Weakening Question

Bottom-Up / Argument

Translation: T is the best candidate running in this election. T opposes higher taxes while the other candidates are proponents of higher taxes. Many people agree that those who oppose higher taxes would make a better candidate than those also running for office.

ANALYSIS: The argument is making the common flaw of mistaking a belief for a fact. Just because many people believe something does not mean it is true, which is the flaw in the argument. An analogy of this argument would be. The sun is the smartest star in our galaxy. The sun is a brighter shade of orange than the other stars in our galaxy, and many people would agree that brighter-colored orange stars are the smartest stars in the galaxy. Showing this analogy demonstrates the ridiculousness of this argument. Just because many people believe the color handles the smartness of a star does not in any sense bring it closer to validity.

A - Yes, A hits the nail on this exactly. Just because many people believe it does not make it true, this answer choice is denying the truth of the belief, which weakens the argument because the argument itself depends on the belief.

B - This answer choice is wrong because it doesn't need to be, whether it is or is not a sufficient condition does not matter for our argument

C - I was originally attracted to C but I think that was because I was bringing too much information into the question. This weakens the conclusion per se, but does not weaken the ways in which the premises support the conclusion, so does not weaken the ARGUMENT, since day 1 has taught us that an argument is nothing more but premises and a conclusion

Passage 4: Science passage about brain modularization and fMRI

Paragraph 1: The author states that brain scans work in the sense that X-ray's work, but when you use them to gauge psychological activity, the foundation relies on a premise that may or may not be true

Paragraph 2: The author states that the modular theory of mind may not actually be accurate and cites William Uttal to support his belief

Paragraph 3: Author then goes to explain that if the modular theory of mind is in fact inaccurate, then what does an MRI measure? Goes on to explain the subtraction method and how it works

Paragraph 4: The author provides a flaw with fMRI's and subtraction method, but has to say they are attractive due to how compatible they are with the modular theory

MP: Brain scans may not be an entirely accurate depiction of psychological activity since rely on a premise that may not be true and fMRI's tend to be flawed in their foundation

22: Agree Question. Asking what the author would most likely agree with regarding the subtractive method. Looking for something to say it is attractive because it works well with the modular theory yet inaccurate because does not account for the control group being active in the time it is measured

A - No, I think this answer choice takes it a step too far. We don't know if the author would go that far to say that the empirical results are invalid

B - No, the author actually thinks the opposite. The subtractive method works with the modular method not William Uttal's method

C - No, there is no support for this answer choice. This is William Uttal's reasoning

D - Yes, this would be supported because of the last paragraph. The author says the subtractive method is attractive but it isn't accurate due to the false consideration of the brain activity in the control v. experimental group, but it is supported because they work so well together

E - No, you read this answer choice wrong. This answer choice is saying that the fact that the subtractive method depicts differential rates of oxygen use in the brain is based on a foundational flaw. This is not necessarily true, the subtractive method does show the different rates of oxygen but the author is saying that people fail to consider something which makes the method flawed, not that the method is flawed in its foundation itself

23: Purpose Question. Again, try to have a rephrase. Why did the author write the fourth paragraph? In the fourth paragraph, the author is showing that there is a problem with fMRI that most people fail to consider, and this leads to a false impression. So the author is showing that the fMRI is not necessarily true, yet is soooo attractive cause works with modular theory. In an analogy way, saying there is a flaw in the method'se used to declare Christopher Columbus found America in 1492, but the evidence works sooo well with the theory that he did find America in 1492 that it is attractive (hypothetical, of course).

A - No, I would argue that the paragraph actually does the opposite. It's 1/2 right in the sense that it does criticize the results, but says they are compatible with the modular theory, not incompatible.

B - No, the author is not saying that the modular theory must be changed...

C - No, I don't see support for an outdated theoretical model being described...

D - No, this answer choice is wrong due to the word inadequacy. The author is not arguing in the paragraph that fMRI is wrong because is points to inadequacy in two theories. He is showing it's wrong for other reasons

E - Yes, this is correct. The author is showing the problems with the fMRI to show why they, and the modular theory, do not take precedence over Uttal's theory, he is pointing out their flaws to show they should not be prioritized

27: Analogy Question. My weakness, I find these to be so hard and difficult to rephrase. I misread the flaw in how people read fMRI and that we were aiming to duplicated flawed reasoning. The way people look at fMRI's (according to the passage) is that they think the area that is lit up is the ONLY area that is lit up and active, but in reality, the area is lit up because it is more active than other parts of the brain. We want to look for an answer choice that thinks something is the ONLY area.

B - B is correct because it is attributing something to affect only one particular area/region, but this need not be true. Our argument does the same thing

C - No, because this answer choice is not limiting. Not a comparison. Would need to say more of the water supply is used by X so X is the only thing affected when droughts occur

Passage 3: Comparative Passage

Passage A:

- Paragraph 1 = The author defines insider-trading LAW, note he does not define insider-trading. I read over the law and this came back to haunt me

- Paragraph 2 = The author shows his opinion - poses the rhetorical question of how IS trading is different from the regular stock analysis? He doesn't believe it to be much different at all

- Paragraph 3 = Stock market benefits when people act on knowledge

- Paragraph 4 = The author elaborates on what he was saying in paragraph 3, in real terms showing how stock market reacts to people acting on the information and this can be beneficial to participants

- Paragraph 5 = Another example of the author showing his opinion, stating it's more harmful NOT to act on knowledge than to act on insider knowledge they have

MP, A: The author tends to think that insider trading can actually be beneficial to stock market participants and that not acting on insider knowledge can actually do more harm than it can do good

Passage B:

- Paragraph 1: The author defines a transparent market and gives us the impression that the is a proponent of it

- Paragraph 2: Author states that IS trading is unfair because people can make decisions on info not everyone has access to

- Paragraph 3: This would cause people to lose confidence in the stock market and would have negative repurcussions

MP, B: Insider Trading can mess up the entire stock market due to loss of investor confidence

Questions Wrong:

14: I think I read too much into this question. Can almost treat these questions like MP questions.

A - Originally thought this is right, but Passage A opens up with defining INSIDER TRADING LAW, not insider trading itself. Passage B does make a reference to what Insider Trading is, but Passage A does not explicitly define it

D - This answer choice seems to encapsulate both authors' main points, A would say it is not harmful to stock market and makes his argument while B would say it is harmful to the stock market and make his argument

15: Author Attitude Question, asking how each author would respectively feel about Insider Trading. This is a question it is helpful to have a flashlight for before going into the answer choices. A would say that Insider Trading can be positive, while B definitely has a negative standpoint.

B - B is right because Author A is actually positive. If he were not an advocate for Insider Trading, then why would he say what he did in the fourth paragraph that the law should be amended to regulate people who are not acting on insider knowledge

C - C is wrong because Author A is not neutral. Again, his argument is targeted towards Insider Trading being a good thing, netural implies he has no opinion but the passage proves otherwise

17: This is a Principle Question. Think of this in LR as a MBT type question. Which one of the following MBT based off of what the author of Passage A has said?

E - E is the only answer that MBT when you look at the question through this lens. A is clearly a proponent of IS and E encapsulates this advocacy

Passage 2: Great Migration

Paragraph 1: Explains the Great Migration and the impetus behind it

Paragraph 2: The author(s) pose their question and their explanations for why they believe the Great Migration continued to thrive while the income-gap was narrowing

Paragraph 3: The author(s) zoom out and take it high-level, explaining the reasons why people in general migrate and the problems associated with migration

Paragraph 4: The author(s) explain how African-Americans were able to resolve these issues mentioned in paragraph 3 to then continue to accelerate the migration

MP: The Great Migration accelerated after 1915 because African-American's were able to resolve the issues that people tend to face when dealing with migration

Questions I got wrong:

7: Main Point Question - these can be easy but also enable one to fall into a trap.

C - C is wrong because it's too specific. This is just one reason why African American migration accelerated at that time, but the article is not all-encompassing about this one reason. If this article was solely about how earlier migrants helped defray the costs, then this would be correct. Yet, the article also makes reference to early migrants providing information and cultural cushions, the article does not revolve around defraying financial costs.

E - The subtleness of E initially deterred me, but let me explain how it is correct. E is correct because it is all-encompassing. It doesn't make a direct reference but that is okay, it does not need to. The subtleness of "other factors must be cited in order to explain..." includes the reasons the economists explain the migration continued to thrive

13: Strengthening Question - looking to strengthen the authors' analysis of the Great Migration. Notice, this question asks in the scope of the Great Migration itself, not the reasons why the migration continued to accelerate after the Great Migration. Before looking at the answer choices, I am going to assume I want to look for something that strengthens the reasons in which the authors provide the Great Migration started.

A - A is wrong because I don't believe this would necessarily strengthen the author's position. I misread this answer choice. I thought the answer choice was telling us employment grew at a steady rate between 1915 and 1960, but it is the TIME it took to find employment. This would weaken the argument

B - B strengthens the argument because it supports the evidence that the Great Migration did indeed occur

D - D is incorrect because it's not the authors' analysis. The authors tell us of a time during World War I, this answer choice tell us after World War I, but that is not the evidence we are looking to strengthen. So this does nothing to our authors analysis

? Type = PSA

Bottom-Up / Argument

Translation: If you feel like as an individual you cannot do anything to help change society, then you will not be able to help change the world. Therefore, if you want to help change the world you should reject the belief that no individual is too powerless to do so.

ANALYSIS: These questions are like strengthening questions. We want to strengthen the idea that those who want to make a change should reject the idea of powerlessness based on the premise that those who do feel helpless will not make a change.

I was torn between B and D for this question.

B is incorrect because it is in the wrong order, we need to end with our conclusion in the necessary condition and here the conclusion is in the sufficient condition, which is justifying something else, making this incorrect.

? Type = RRE

Bottom-Up / Paradox:

Translation: When chimpanzees become angry, they often partake in threat gestures. Chimpanzees also attack when they become angry. However, these two phenomena seem to be mutually exclusive. When chimpanzees give threat gestures they hardly ever attack, and when chimpanzees attack they hardly ever give threat gestures.

ANALYSIS: This is an RRE question, so we are looking to figure out exactly why chimpanzees do not partake in both activities. Ideally, an answer would explain why attacking does not lead to threat gestures or vice versa

A - We don't exactly care why chimpanzees partake in threat gestures, we want to know why mutually exclusive, not the motivation of partaking in, so this answer choice cannot be correct

B - Yes, this explains why they are mutually exclusive. When they make threat gestures, it is somewhat cathartic, so they do not feel the need to partake in attacks

C - Okay, so this answer choice is telling us that there are other ways in which chimpanzees display aggression. That's fine but that does not answer why two methods of displaying aggression are mutually exclusive

D - Again, saying threat gestures are responded to with other threat gestures but this doesn't answer why attacks does not lead to threat gesture and vice versa

E - Originally thought E was very attractive but now I see why it is not correct. It is referring to a specific subset of chimpanzees, and just kind of tell us what we already know. Those that make threat gestures are least often to attack. Great, but this still does not answer WHY. Just because it uses the terminology we are trying to find the answer to does not mean that it is the right answer.

Question Type: Strengthening

Bottom-Up / Argument

Translation: During the last ice age, people left Siberia and crossed the Bering Land Bridge, which no longer exists, in North America. Years later, there were a bunch of Clovis points found in Siberia. This shows that the Clovis Points were not invented in North America.

ANALYSIS - This stimulus type is an argument, so we are looking for a loophole to spot an assumption the author is making. The author is thinking that crossing the Bering Land Bridge was a one time thing, but what if the people went from Siberia, to North America, and then back to Siberia, where the Clovis Points were then found? If this were the case, then Clovis Points could definitely be invented in North America

A - Yes, this strengthens the argument because it is plugging the assumption we are making. If the Clovis Points found in Siberia are older than the ones found in North America, then it wouldn't matter if the people brought Clovis Points back from North America, the Clovis Points being older in Siberia clearly show they were not invented in North America

B - I thought this answer choice was attractive, but it requires too many assumptions. If the Bering Land Bridge were to disappear before the Clovis Points were made, yet they were still found in Siberia, this does not necessarily mean they were MADE in Siberia. What if they brought over to Siberia from North America through a different medium of travel? The Bering Land Bridge is not necessarily the main route one needs to take to get to Siberia

C - Don't care about the effectiveness of Clovis Points, this does not matter

D - This is too broad, great for the archaeologists but what do these artifacts compose of? Are Clovis Points included? Requires too many assumptions

E - This weakens our argument, if this was a denial of this statement this would be attractive, but it acts as a weakener

? Type = PMOR

Top-Down / Argument

For this one, I was torn between A and C. Said C under time constraint but said A in Blind Review. JY has now confirmed exactly why A is wrong and I need to reiterate.

A is wrong because it does not deny OPA's, which our argument does. Many of world's languages can be traced back to a common source known as Indo-European DOES NOT MEAN Indo-European is the earliest language. Here is an analogy.

Many languages revert back to Latin. That does not mean Latin is the earliest language. The argument is denying a different conclusion and our argument does not do that, so its wrong

? Type = Strengthening

Bottom-Up / Argument

Translation: Animals should not eat genetically modified plants. In an experiment, laboratory rats were given genetically modified potatoes and developed stomach ulcers whereas rats were given non-genetically modified potatoes and did not develop these complications.

ANALYSIS: The author is assuming that the genetic modification led to the problem in the laboratory rats, but notice the change in the subjects being experimented. To make this a better argument, you would need to compare laboratory rats to laboratory rats, which is one flaw in this argument. What if the laboratory rats had something else going on that led to the development of this issue, that had nothing to do with the genetically modified foods?

A - Yes, this weakens it because it says the laboratory rats were given something they are not used to, so this can explain for the weird reaction. It was the bodies' lack of familiarity rather than the genetic modifications themselves

B - No, this is an irrelevant comparison

C - I thought this was attractive because had the wording of my pre-phrase but THAT DOES NOT MAKE AN ANSWER CHOICE CORRECT. This says the intestinal deformities appeared first when they were born. This doesn't weaken the argument because some laboratory rats had intestinal deformities prior to the experiment. Okay, but this does not weaken that the genetically modified foods made the genetic modification worse. Also we don't know if the rats in our argument were bred in laboratory conditions

D - Don't care about the nutritional value

E - This is irrelevant

? Type = Strengthening

Bottom-Up / Argument

Translation: Over the next 100 years, the temperature in the Rocky Mountains will increase due to global warming. This will cause more precipitation to fall as rain instead of snow. Therefore, the snowpacks in the mountains will melt earlier in the season, causing an increase in spring flooding and a decrease in storable water to meet summer demands.

ANALYSIS: The argument is making the assumption that the decrease in snowpacks will actually have these consequences as an effect but we do not know if this is necessarily true. What if this domino effect does not happen? This is what we are trying to strengthen

A - This AC tells us that global warming will cause it to rain more. Okay, but this does not strengthen the idea that the rain will lead to the decreased snowpack which would then have that domino effect

B - Yes, this strengthens the argument because it says in other mountainous regions, the decreased snowpack has had these effects. If you are saying that in similar regions it has had the same effect then it strengthens the idea that it would have an effect in your region. Think of an analogy, in a desert in Utah increased temperature has led to hikers becoming more thirsty, this could strengthen the idea that in a desert in Arizona the increased temperature could have the same effect on hikers there

C - I originally liked this answer choice because it used the word "Rocky Mountains" but that is exactly the trap the test makers are putting out for you. This answer choice is incorrect because it is not telling us how the less storable water came to be. All we know is that increased temperature is correlated with less storable water in certain areas of the Rocky Mountains. We are looking to strengthen that the melting of snowpacks led to this decrease in the storable water, but the argument fails to tell us the source of the decrease in storable water, so it's not strengthening the idea we need for this to be correct

D - Okay, mildest winters do not tell us this would apply to our region?

E - No, this is the opposite of what the argument is looking to tell us

? Type = Disagree

Top-Down / Debate

Translation: V - scientific discipline → study something that cannot be measured. Happiness is entirely subjective, so it cannot be measured. (Inference - it's not a scientific discipline)

Y - Optometry relies on what patients see and happiness relies on what patients feel. Optometry is a scientific discipline

CLIR - Controversy - the controversy here is whether scientific disciplines can rely on reports of what you feel, which think you LSAC, we now know can say is subjective

A - Vincent would agree with this but we do not what Y would say

B - Y would agree with this but we do not know what V would say

C - See, this is the point of contention. V would say no, but Y would say yes since the presumption of reporting what you see/feel is a subjective experience

D - I thought this answer choice was very attractive but read over the "as much as." We have no idea if Y would say it as much of a scientific discipline as optometry, so this cannot be right

E - No, this is a mistaken reversal of what V says. We don't know how either of them would feel about this

? Type - Strengthen

Bottom-Up / Argument

Translation: People tend to like low-fat chocolate ice cream as much as they like full-fat chocolate ice cream. However, in a sample done, people tend to dislike low-fat vanilla ice cream and prefer full-fat vanilla ice cream. Chocolate is a complex flavor, composed of many different compounds, so the compounds probably make up for the taste difference in the low-fat version.

ANALYSIS: This is an example of a false start. A false start is when two groups are compared, and the argument presumes that just because the isolated experiment of two groups yields a certain outcome, they are equal in all other respects. What if vanilla is also a complex flavor composed of many different compounds? Then this argument falls apart. That's the assumption the argument is making

A - This is wrong because it is not our argument, most people prefer full-fat chocolate to full-fat vanilla. Great, but how does that strengthen the idea that the complexity is what gives LOW-FAT ice cream its flavor? It doesn't, so it's wrong

B - The subjects did not know if they were eating low-fat or full-fat ice cream. Okay, but them knowing versus not knowing does not really make a difference. Still doesn't explain their preferences for the flavor that they were eating that the experimenters knew were low-fat

C - This answer choice is attractive, but it is not wrong. More distinct compounds the better people like it. Liking it does not necessarily mean from a taste perspective. What if people like it because more complex means that it is a more colorful flavor, like rainbow? Like =/= Taste

D - Yes, this plugs the loophole in the argument. The argument is assuming that vanilla is not complex, but what if it is not? Then this AC is telling us well, vanilla is not actually complex. If this were the case, then it does strengthen the idea that the complexity does in fact give chocolate this advantage

E - Okay, people know that certain flavors are more complex than others. Great, but what does that tell us? Nothing about our argument

? Type - Evaluate -- essentially both a strengthening and weakening question

Translation - The "Doing Business" report discusses how easy it is to do business in a certain county, composing regulations and complying by tax laws for a hypothetical business. Since last year, our country has reduced tax filings for small and mid-sized businesses, so we should do better on the "Doing Business" report than previously.

ANALYSIS - This is an argument so we are looking for a Loophole to call the argument out on the assumption. At first, this was difficult for me but the argument is assuming that the small and mid-sized business are representative of the hypothetical business. What if the hypothetical business was Amazon and our small/mid-sized businesses are mom and pop shops? Than could we really think we would do better?

A - No, we don't care at which the rate at which new business are formed to increase our standings in the "Doing Business" raning

B - Originally thought this was very very attractive, but there are two components to the the "Doing Business" report - complying with regulations and paying takes? If the answer to this A.C. was 100% yes, that does not the answer the question regarding other components and can not be accepted

C - No, we don't care about this comparison

D - Yes, this spots our Loophole. Is the size applicable? If not, this argument falls apart

E - Don't care about when the minister was/was not in office

? Type = Counter

Translation: Henry: Tesla's pollute less than standard fuel powered Jeep's. So, to reduce urban pollution, we should replace all cars with Tesla's

Umit: I don't agree with you. Tesla's require their batteries to be charge quite frequently and the battery's charging depends upon electricity from power plants. This will lead to an increased need of electricity from power plants, which would cause more pollution.

CLIR: This is a debate, so we are looking for a controversy. It seems that Umit feels like it is not the case that reducing to Tesla's would reduce urban pollution. Now, since this is a counter question, we are looking for an answer choice that would counter his objection, let's see.

A - This answer choice seems so wrong cause it is worded like a typical trap answer choice, but is right. This would weaken Umit's claim cause the pollution from power plants would not do anything to urban (major cities) since they are so far away

B - SO attractive. I initially said B but this answer choice does not mention the idea of the pollution being reduced. It says the pollution from the power plants would be offset by the usage of the electric cars. Offset does not mean decrease, and this opens up the idea to pollution of air pollution but what if we are talking about a different kind of pollution?

? Type - Flaw/Descriptive Weakening

Translation: The green party and the red party have become sharply divided in Denver. In the past 4 elections, they have been separated by less than 1% of the vote.

ANALYSIS: It took me a bit to figure out what this stimulus was saying, so let's make it more digestible.

Red Party Green Party

38.6% 38.2%

This has been the case for the past 4 elections. How the hell does this show they are clearly divided on the issues? This doesn't show us anything, well this is exactly why it is a flawed argument

A - No, I originally thought this was attractive, but that is because I was not sure what the argument was saying. This is not a cause/effect argument. If this answer choice were to be correct it would need to say, "The current political climate shows that the Red Party and the Green Party have become divided. So the division occurred due to the current political climate."

B - No, no support for the argument giving a positive/negative connotation

C - No, this is not a circular argument

D - No, this is only in the scope of one city

E - Yes, assumes that having the same number of notes (what this A.C. is saying) means a sharp division, but we do not know this from the evidence provided