- Joined
- Jun 2026
- Subscription
- Live
Admissions profile
Discussions
We don't need to know actually. D says "two or more objectionable characteristics," thus the stimulus satifies D's condition regardless of which two D had in mind.
D is adding a general / broad rule that covers the stimulus's case.
I am able to identify the structure of the stimulus and yet, am getting some of these wrong because I'm having a hard time understanding the sentence itself.
@ariarmstrong03 Same. This is exactly what I've been doing in this section.
Identify Premise and Conclusion, check the gaps in logic, and choose the AC that fills it.
I picked C but then after reading D, changed my answer choice.
For me, answer choice C felt like the LSAT trick that triggers our subconscious to make a logical leap. We do not know the correlation between being in good physical condition and getting infected by HepA, and thus, cannot conclude that if one is in a good physical condition, that one will be less vulnerable to Hep A infection.
I missed "unless the heat wave abates".
Answer A is wrong because even if it's true that there are other factors that use a lot of electricity, that doesn't justify blackouts will be gone after the heat wave abates. Rather, blackouts will continue even after the heatwave is gone.
Support: Others trust -> Confident in ability -> task as a challenge
Conclusion: Trust others -> task as a challenge
For the conclusion to be true, there needs to be a connection between “trust others” and “others trust”.
If those who trust others believe others trust them, then they are confident in their ability, and thus, perceive a task as a challenge. So the missing piece is trust others -> others trust
"most" arrow implies the "some" arrow which means that "A —m→ B" implies "A ←s→ B.
This is the single most important part that we must not forget.
Generous -m-> Good -> Listener
Most generous are good parents, and good parents are listeners. But, this doesn’t explain whether most listeners are generous since we don’t know the proportion of listeners that are generous. If generous is a small portion of the listeners, then it’s false that most listeners are generous.
Self-centered <-s-> Good -> Listener
Some self-centered are good parents, and good parents are listeners. So, some listeners can be self-centered.
I think the main takeaway is that "many" does not include a claim about proportion(%). Therefore, it is subjective and can't be considered most.
There's no contrapositives for "Some" and "Most" because the sentences do not include conditional logic. There is no way to translate these sentences to "If A, then B", because there is no condition.
Lawgic
buy an expensive antique -> confident of its authenticity AND find the piece desirable AND not just for its value as an investment
/confident of its authenticity OR /find the piece desirable OR just for its value as an investment -> /buy an expensive antique
So as long as one of the conditions are met, then Matilda shouldn't buy the vase. As for E, it's the confidence in authenticity that is missing.
Sentence 1. inspired musical performances -> good show
Sentence 2. /sophisticated listener -> /good show
Sentence 3. Sophisticated listener -> understand roots
Chaining the sentences
inspired musical performances -> good show -> Sophisticated listener -> understand roots
Questions
A. /sophisticated listener -> /inspired musical performances
B. /good show -> /understand roots
C. Understand roots -> inspired musical performances
D. understand roots -> good show
E. Sophisticated listener -> inspired musical performances
It always helps to convert the sentence to the If A, then B format, where A is the sufficient condition and B is the necessity condition.
Q1 - Lazy cats never develop heart disease.
- Lazy cats -> /heart disease
- heart disease -> /Lazy cats
- If it's a lazy cat, then it never develops a heart disease
- If it develops a heart disease, then it's not a lazy cat.
Q2 - No holiday falls within the month of August.
August -> /holiday
holiday -> /august
If it's August, then there's no holiday.
If it's a holiday, then it's not August.
Q3 - No birds are trees.
Trees -> /birds
birds -> /Trees
If it's a tree, then it's not a bird
If it's a bird, then it's not a tree
Q4 - Mesopotamian cities never had marketplaces.
MC -> /marketplace
marketplace -> /MC
If it's a Mesopotamian city, then it never had marketplaces
If it has a marketplace, then it's not a Mesopotamian city
Q5 - None of the recent technological advances in producing electric power at photovoltaic plants can be applied to producing power at traditional plants.
traditional plants. -> /recent technological advances in producing electric power at photovoltaic plants can be applied to producing power
recent technological advances in producing electric power at photovoltaic plants can be applied to producing power -> /traditional plant
If it's a traditional plant, then none of the recent technological advances in producing electric power at photovoltaic plants can be applied to producing power
If recent technological advances in producing electric power at photovoltaic plants can be applied to producing power, then it's not a traditional plant
=> As for Q5, I kind of think splitting the sufficient and necessity condition this way makes more sense.
My initial read was this as well, and I eliminated C. But, the conclusion is that "the taxes themselves would produce the sought-after reduction in smoking", which is not limited to a specific city.