Now that I am re-reading it, I can understand why AC B is wrong. AC B does not support the conclusion in regards to how physics would progress. AC B is saying that biology has had few incidents of fraud in the last 20 years since they enhanced safeguards. But how does the fraud rate in biology correlate with the conclusion of the argument which is that if physicists instituted safeguards, then they would progress? Just because biology’s rate of fraud decreased, does not necessarily mean that the rate in physics would also decrease. Even if the rate of fraud did decrease in physics, then we would have to assume that decreasing the rate of fraud will cause physics to progress.

Others made good points that this argument structure is an argument by analogy so the correct AC should also strengthen how biology and physics are similar. AC B does not do this as it only addresses biology.

Wow. During the test and BR, I couldn't understand what in the world the flaw was and then once JY explained the flaw it clicked. Of course it makes sense that even with prevention of iatrogenic disease, the person could still die from the non-iatrogenic disease. AC C is an odd way to state that though.

It's very hard to see what the counterexample in AC C is referring to. If you think the conclusion is that evolution does not always optimize survival then you are looking for a counterexample to prove that evolution does always optimize survival. However, there is no such example. None of the examples are counter to this conclusion, rather they are consistent in proving various ways in which evolution is not optimal. So now you have to rethink the conclusion to say the almost same thing in an opposite way of what the conclusion states, which is that some people think that evolution always optimizes survival, but they are wrong. Then a counterexample to this conclusion would be the examples that are given that show that evolution is not always optimal.

This is some real convoluted thinking to do in one minute.

I didn't like AC B because you have to assume that the steam did not carry heavy isotopes which we know are present in the core. I suppose this is a reasonable assumption (?) since it is a most strongly supported question, but it is way too loose of an LR question. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that since the core has heavy isotopes, the steam would likely carry that downwind.

For question 14, my thought process for choosing B was that adults are more likely to incorrectly say that they aren't making inferences about their own thoughts and therefore are "more likely than children to give inaccurate reports of their thought processes." Thoughts on why this is incorrect?

If you change AC C to "Many people who criticize etiquette are mistaken about its lack of beneficial effects for society" then it makes way more sense. I misinterpreted the AC to be saying that the people were mistaken in thinking that etiquette does have beneficial effects.

Would C be a necessary assumption?

If Shakespeare is not different from other men of his time, then you wouldn't be able to conclude that the biography does not explain what is most interesting about him.

@ If you are going to resign, then I would advise trying to get a letter of recommendation from your boss as soon as possible. Your boss has already said she will write you a letter, so tell her what the letter is for, why you are so interested in law school, and how this job has prepared you for law school. If you have a good relationship with your boss, then she will likely write a letter of recommendation regardless of whether or not you are going to an MBA program or law school. I would ask for a letter of rec and get the letter before you resign and if you are open about wanting to go to law school, then your boss shouldn't be too surprised when you do leave because you have already told her that you have aspirations outside of this particular company.

The main difference I see is that AC E states that the college students "say" that they do community service. We don't really know if what they say is reliable.

Whereas, AC D and the stimulus seem to match more closely and even use the same terminology of "probably" in the conclusion.

Hi you have to pay close attention to word choice in these answers.

Answer E: It is "legally permissible" for a mural to be destroyed by the owner if he/she "tires" of it.

Would Shanna agree with this? We have no idea if Shanna would or would not agree with this because we don't know what Shanna thinks is "legally permissible." All we know is that Shanna would likely find this ethically permissible. Additionally, "tires of it" may not necessarily qualify as finding it inconvenient so we should be skeptical of that language.

Would Jorge agree with this? Again, we have no idea what Jorge thinks about legal permissibility. We cannot assume that because Jorge thinks that historically valuable items should be preserved that this also means that Jorge would disagree with this statement because we don't know his thoughts on the legality of the situation, just the morality.

Answer A: Anyone who owns an unflattering portrait of something is ethically justified in destroying on the basis that it is unflattering.

Would Shanna agree with this? Yes, Shanna would agree because Shanna thinks that as long as you own the portrait AND find it aesthetically distateful, then you can ethically destroy it.

Would Jorge agree with this? No because Jorge says that even though you own it, you are not morally justified in destroying it. So Jorge would not agree that anyone could destroy such a piece of art.

Now, the type of artwork describe in this AC is not all that important because it is the only AC that they would disagree about. Shanna refers to ANY art (so this portrait would qualify) and Jorge refers to unique works of art which this portrait may qualify as.

I chose E because I thought that billed was synonymous with fined. Ugh.

The way in which the stimulus is written threw me off. I was thinking that we needed to assume that if a reaction to a signal is interpreted as aggressive, then that signal must be aggressive. However, that is not the case. Just because we can interpret any reaction to a signal as aggressive, does not actually mean that the response is aggressive.

Hi I messaged you too

In the second paragraph, we read that the first proposal is the “most modest” of all of the proposals. Hence, we have to understand the usage of the word modest relative to the other proposals. The other proposal must be less modest than the first proposal since the first proposal is the “most modest.” So how can we differentiate the proposals from one another to deduce the meaning of modest? Well, AC B is correct because we know that the first proposal is the least radical of the two. The first proposal is just saying that we need to learn about cultures, but that we can do so within the perspective of the majority culture. Contrast that with the second proposal which says that we need to learn about cultures, but that we must do so by remaining neutral about value differences between cultures. The second proposal is taking things a step further than the first proposal by basically saying that we can’t have the perspective of the majority culture, and that we have to remain neutral. Thus, we can understand modest to mean that the proposal is calling for less change in how we teach multicultural education than the second proposal.

AC A: This AC is stating that the first proposal is the least speculative in how it understands non-Western cultures. But we know that is not true because the first proposal analyzes non-Western cultures through a Western lens, so it probably is somewhat speculative in how it understands the non-Western world. Whereas, the second proposal is actually less speculative than the first because it at the very least is trying to understand non-Western cultures through an unbiased understanding of values.

I chose B during the test and BR.

My goal is to find an AC that strengthens the argument that minivans are not inherently safer by design than other vehicles and their strong safety record is likely because minivans are driven by low-risk drivers.

AC A) Doesn’t make sense because the premise says that minivans do not perform particularly well in crash tests.

AC B) This answer is talking about # of accidents which has nothing to do with premises regarding # of injuries. Furthermore, if we accept that AC B is true and that the argument’s conclusion is true, then this AC is basically saying that low-risk drivers still get in a lot of accidents just like other vehicles, which actually kind of weakens our argument.

AC C) # of passengers has nothing to do with the argument.

AC D) This would weaken the argument because then minivans by design would be inherently safer.

AC E) Correct because this supports the argument that minivans are not inherently safer by design, thus it stands that low-risk drivers are causing the good safety record.

I chose AC A and B during the test and BR. AC E didn’t even register for me.

There are strong libel laws. Even though no one will say anything bad about public figures, no one can have a good reputation. We are trying to figure out how this is possible because it doesn’t make sense.

AC A: If there are no libel laws, then everyone can have a good reputation.….This doesn’t work because our argument states Libel Laws  /Good reputation. Contrapositive of that would not be this answer choice.

AC B: With strong libel laws, some will have bad reputations….Even if we assume this AC to be true, it still doesn’t answer why it is impossible for a public figure to have a good reputation.

AC E: If public figures have good reputations, then there are those with bad reputations…..Yes, this makes sense. You need to remember that Only If introduces necessary condition. So in our argument it makes sense that no one has a good reputation because people aren’t saying bad things about politicians thus causing them to have a bad reputation which is a necessary condition for others to have good reputation.

I chose AC B. Upon review, I see that even if it is true that language emerged independently, that doesn't influence how money would have emerged independently.

AC C was tricky just because it seems like a mish mash of words that is structured similar to other SA answers that I've seen before. However, this doesn't have anything to do with our conclusion about how money emerges independently.

I answered this question correctly, but I think that AC E makes a lot of assumptions and is difficult to eliminate. AC E states that the Commissioner agrees with the association's current recommendation; however, we don't know if he agrees or not. All we know is that he is basing his decision off of the association's report which he believes to be accurate. Perhaps the Commissioner believes that the association's report is accurate, but he still doesn't want to agree with and follow their recommendation. Don't we have to make a lot of assumptions to eliminate E? #help

I'm a little late, but would love to join too!

Argument: The party’s proposal to stimulate the economy by refunding $600 million to taxpayers is a dumbass idea. Why? Because our budget needs to be in balance so either we would need to institute new taxes to make up the $600 million or we would need to lay off a bunch of workers to make up the $600 million. A $600 million refund is either going to benefit taxpayers or workers, so to conclude is no possible way to have a net increase in spending to stimulate the economy.

Weaken: We are trying to find an answer choice that shows that there is some way possible to refund the taxpayers $600 million without having to raise taxes and without having to fire workers. Basically we are looking for an answer choice that proves that we can BOTH refund taxpayers $600 million and get $600 million from somewhere else.

AC E does exactly what I stated above. We are using workers more effectively so we are going to save $600 million. Since we are saving this money, we can refund the taxpayers $600 million resulting overall in a net increase in spending.

AC D says that we are not going to refund the taxpayers and instead we are going use $600 million and put them in construction projects. There are two main problems with this. 1) By saying that we are not going to refund the taxpayers, we are not addressing the conclusion in the stimulus. We have to weaken the stimulus which means we need to show why it is not true that there can’t be a net increase in spending while refunding the taxpayers. 2) If you chose this answer choice (like I did), you probably made the assumption that this $600 million in construction projects is going to result in at least a return of $600 million. We can’t make that assumption because maybe the construction projects are not profitable and we just spent $600 million dollars and have no way of getting that money back to balance the province’s budget.

The LSAT has taught me that I don't know simple math concepts.

I don't understand why negating A wrecks the argument. Negated, A says that all of the crows that shrieked/dive bombed were among the crows that had been trapped. I do not understand why this cannot be true in the context of the argument. Granted, if this were true, the argument still wouldn't do a good job of supporting the premise that crows can pass on their concerns to other crows. However, the argument isn't completely ruined just because there is weak support for that premise.

Hi, please remember that a company wants what is best for them, not necessarily you, so be cautious with what you tell them. If they ask where you want to be in five years, be honest and say that you are interested in pursuing law, but make sure you explain how that relates to the position that you are trying to get now. Do not offer a definite timeline of when you expect to go to law school.

Does your PS touch on any of things things? If so, then choose some of the other things that it doesn't touch on. Does one of these themes have a larger impact in your life/worldview? Also, the first 4 bullet points can go under a general umbrella diversity statement about being in a lower socioeconomic class and how that impacted your life.

What I don't understand about AC B is that negating the AC only fails part of the conclusion that animals today would be difficult to domesticate. The conclusion gives two possibilities: either too difficult to domesticate or not worthwhile doing so. AC B does not address if it worthwhile to domesticate the animal. So couldn't it be possible that despite the fact that it is easier to domesticate an animal, we still aren't going to because we decided that it just isn't worthwhile. #help