#HELP I don't understand why E is wrong in question 14. I do get with C is correct (norms being in place is different from norms being enforced) but I am having troubles understanding when the impact on creative outcome is discussed in passage B

#Help, same question

#Help

I changed my answer from E to C in BR because I thought that E was too absolute for a necessary assumption "fundamental change". My reasoning was: stimulus talks about no change at all but AC addresses fundamental change, this is not required. Can somebody explain? Any advice on not making this kind of mistake in the future?

For Q16 I chose A during PT and then changed to E during BR although I didn't like the "in any way" which seemed to extreme. I doubted myself in BR because I thought that we could compare an athlete's performance with their performance as a child (before intensive training) as was mentioned in the paragraph but I think this inference is simply going too far.

Super interested!

A: I had not thought about the fact that choosing the wrong abstract could actually UNDERMINE the politicans' goal.

C: I didn't see that this answer choice did not answer the question. If people do not judge based off of politicans' actual attitude, then what? They could adopt this technique or not adopt it, it wouldn't make a difference, so this does not undermine the argument

Explanation:

Stimulus: The more A, the more B. C has more A than D. Therefore, C has more B than D.

A: One gets more A as one gets more B. C has more B than D. Therefore C has more A than D. Flawed: we don't know where they both started. It's an evolution instead of a comparison

B: The more A, the more B. C has more A than D. Therefore, C has more B than D. Perfecly parallel

This LSAThack explanation is super helpful: https://lsathacks.com/explanations/lsat-preptest-28/logical-reasoning-1/q-20/

Same #help

To be it sounds like (C) implies EW → /CP and CP → /EW. EW → /CP is in direct contradiction with our diagram

I originally answered E and then changed to A in BR. JY's explanation didn't really help me understand why E was correct and A wrong, but after having thought about it more, here is my reasoning:

- A makes the assumption that households are going to buy cars together and therefore divide the price among themselves. That is not necessarily correct, because more wages per household can mean more cars per household, which does not decrease the share of income spent on buying cars.

- What really threw me off in the stimulus was "individuals WHO buy new cars". So we are talking about these individuals who indeed buy new cars (at a more expensive price I assumed). But actually, E is fighting the assumption that the market price for new cars is the same for all. Individuals might be paying substantially less for cars than do businesses and groups, hence why it matters the proportion of buyers that they represent.

I'm in Berkeley and probably planning on taking October but I'd be interested!