Thoughts off the bat:
First sentence is conclusion and we ought to ask "why not" at the end of it. Then the second sentence says "oh why? Well because they are probably unaware." So we need to fill this gap. If they are unaware, they shouldn’t be cited.
ACs:
People should not be cited for violating laws of which they are unaware.
Isnt that what we just said? YES pick it
Regulations regarding park use should be widely publicized.
I mean sure that principle applies here but doesn’t help justify the conclusion. What should we do if they’re not? We don’t know if people should be cited or not.
The public should not be expected to know more about the law than any law enforcement officials do.
This is where i got stuck. I read A and thought it was good and then i read this and second guessed myself. I made two mistakes here. For one, this made me go back and weaken A. i said well im sure there’s some cases where people dont know about a law and they break it but they should have known about it and should definitely still be punished. But remember: if an AC takes an assumption to weaken it, don’t make it. This also just doesn’t do what we need it to do. Ok so they’re not expected to know more about it, but is it still fair to cite them or not? We dont really know. This requires the assumption to strengthen it that if its not expected, it can’t be punished. And guess what, thats EXACTLY what A does!!! Assumption to weaken is a much better choice than one that requires an assumption to be strong.
If there's a 5/5 difficulty question that I get correct on my first try, should I make an effort to go over and identify/rule out the trap answers? I guess in a way I must have done that in my original answering. I worry that going over them more might make me more confused when my intuition/reasoning was right the first time. Thoughts? Is it worth doing to carry over?
i like to talk about them with my friends (most are non lsat people but smart)...I'll send a picture of the question without my answer being clear and ask to talk about it. I guess this only works if they think its the right answer and argue you with you about why its right and make you challenge your thinking.
i said the same thing...this seems fair to me. maintains the truth that we do not have the ability to detect planets with what we currently have. only issue is that maybe it doesnt address the MORE sophisticated part as much. I guess that's what we're supposed to focus on here
hey hey me too! Registered for june...diagnostic was 160 and usually score anywhere between 163-168 but i broke 170 ONCE. Hoping to make some more progress when my classes finish this week. Got one month to grind
i got this wrong too but now i'm interpreting it this way: Edward's argument is carving out an exception to Raphaela's. She says no governments have the right. He says the ones that allow emigration DO. We don't know if he rules out others necessarily, but she does.
she doesn't have to. in her argument there is no exception.
@cjudellhalfpenny38 said:
Also interested. Any Athenaeum members?
yes!
interested! Central/Brookline/Allston
I work backwards for these...if no B then no A (/B->/A), which is then easily translated to A -> B
right?? i would think with negation it would just mean if there's no mean there's no dogs which would be true...i think
@sevinnamin188 my general rule is that if an AC takes an assumption to weaken it, it is more likely to be correct than one that might be wayyy stronger but only with an assumption or two.