u get 5 sheets of paper

I know that only introduces necessary, but I chose to diagram using the group 4 indicator "Cannot" .. could someone explain why this is wrong? i thought when there were 2 indicators present that conflict like this you could choose how to diagram them... If we see a group 1 or group 2 indicator mixed with a group 3 or 4 indicator should we always diagram according to the group 1 / group 2 and use the Group 3/4 as a negation? #help

Could someone clarify the translation for D?

no fish without fingers would ever be able to move on land

Move on land --> fish w fingers

Hi! I'm scoring in a similar range and have similar goals. I'd love to connect with you!

I interpreted E as meaning that the author thinks that ANYTHING that serves a certain purpose must have been developed to serve that purpose.... I thought this was wrong because the author doesn't make that assumption about everything that could fall into the category about "serving a purpose" it just makes the assumption about this one individual situation regarding language.... could someone clarify this for me please im going crazy looking at this question i thought E was wrong

i'd love to hear from you as well if you have any advice you could give me! I scored a 173 on a PT over the summer but i've been stuck in the 164-167 zone since then and can't seem to get out of it. Sitting for the Nov LSAT!

"only when" is a necessary condition indicator so if it says "X only when Y" then it's just X --> Y

hope this helps!

did anyone else eliminated C for 22 based on "Evolutionary doctrine?" I felt like that was too strong idk

Whenever u have a S.A. question you want to keep an eye out for choices that put the conclusion in the sufficient condition. This is because for this question type we want to guarantee that the conclusion will happen, and if we put it in the sufficient condition we can't guarantee that it will happen. Ideally, we'd want another premise from the argument in the sufficient condition and then the conclusion in the necessary condition. This is because premises are assumed to be true, so if we have an answer choice that created a conditional relationship where it's IF premise, THEN conclusion , it will guarantee that the conclusion will happen since the premise must be true. It essentially "Triggers" the conclusion.

The issue with "ad agencies can maximize their profits oNLY IF they gear their ads twds older adults" is that it still puts the conclusion (can maximize their profits) in the sufficient condition...

I also think D is a better answer because it uses stronger language (WILL maximize) vs B's CAN maximize...

hope this helps!

SO i understand why C is correct but the wording is throwing me off. This is the first resolve the paradox question i've encountered where the correct answer has weak language like "many" , i thought that the general rule of thumb was to stay away from answers that have weak language for this particular question stem. i know every rule has its exceptions, but I'm wondering if in this instance "many" is ok because the stimulus itself uses many and the question is "MOST HELPS to resolve" so we shouldn't expect a perfect resolution?

I understand why the others are shitty, but lets say you interpreted MANY in choice C to mean 3 people, how could we be certain that this would explain the discrepancy of the same group of people mentioned in the stimulus? Like since they both use many couldn't it potentially refer to different people who wear toning shoes but that doesnt necessarily mean that it overlaps.

I also know that many could mean all, but since choice C could potentially be interpreted in a way where it includes the group from the stimulus OR it could be referring to a group that does NOT include the stimulus I have trouble selecting it as the correct answer. For instance in choice B this would require the assumption that adapt = strengthen, but I dont understand why this assumption isn't ok/reasonable but the assumption in C is.

I find myself having this issue a lot - if anyone could help me understand this better it would be greatly appreciated!

could someone clarify what "Fails to specify adequately the meaning in context of the term "ideal"" means? is this referring to a flaw where there is a shift in meaning behind the word itself (equivocation flaw) ?

#help (Added by Admin)

I still don't understand how B weakens. I interpreted B as they produce more cortisol as a result of the trauma itself. I don't see how the language suggests that they always produced more cortisol even before the traumatic experience. When I read it I eliminated it because I thought this was still suggesting that the traumatic experience was triggering the cortisol. I don't see how the language could suggest anything else! Like i understand that this is supposed to show an alternate explanation but i dont understand how the language could suggest that someone pls #help

Im still confused as to how 21 is E, most of the passage focused on the inconsistencies btwn the principles and the actual usage. E only really focuses on the last paragraph, and i understand why the others are wrong but when I was answering this question during the test i ended up getting this one wrong bc i knew that this was so specific and it didnt address the inconsistencies at all. Could someone help explain this? isn't the whole point of these RC mainpoint questions to encapsulate the summary of the passage? #help

weaken questions dont want you to destroy the argument, the correct answer often does but it doesnt have to you just have to show that it doesnt necessarily have to be true. The corrrect answer could potentially weaken it 1% and it woudl still be correct as long as its hurting the argument. Hope this helps!

thank you so much! how do you know that and isn't referring to 2 separate conditions but rather a collective item? I just assumed that "and" always resulted in this split

#help i originally eliminated B because i thought "most fat free foods AND drinks are sugar free" was creating an "and" conditional statement and the stimulus does not do this... can someone explain why this shouldn't be diagrammed as the following ?

fat free foods

AND ‑m→ Sugar free

Fat free drinks

i thought this stimulus was flawed because of circular reasoning??? could someone explain where i went wrong???

#help (Added by Admin)

Conclusion: tagar is wrong.

Why does the author think this? because these other scientists have conflicting ideas

what's wrong here? well the author never explains why this means that tagar must be wrong and why the other scientists have to be right, who's to say that the other scientists arent the ones who are wrong? This is seen in answer choice B. the author gives the other scientists the benefit of the doubt but then just flat out says that Tagar is wrong essentially because the other scientists say so - by doing that he is "giving preference" not to tagar but the other scientists but he doesnt explain why or what his reasoning is (ie: maybe the other scientists have compiled a lot of data and multiple experiments have been conducted and repeated and they keep producing the same results meanwhile)

so ur right he doesn't give preference to tagar but he is giving preference to the other scientists without any explanation why so the author is still giving preference to one of the 2 parties mentioned in the stimulus, it doesn't have to be a preference to tagar. hope this helps =)

it's asking you to select an additional principle that will help support the original guideline, when you add your answer choice it should make the conclusion more applicable. When u see this type of stimulus set up where it says guideline: xyz and then application under it aka this person did xyz, assume that the application itself is a conclusion for the premises provided by the guideline. This is because the guideline justifies the application. When you see these question types, you should look for whats missing between the principle/guideline presented and the actual application, when you identify what's missing you'll see that there are some gaps in the actual application of the principle - so your goal is to figure out which answer choice would make it more applicable? what do we need to support the application? question stems can be tricky, but picking them apart and seeing how the various question types can be written in different ways makes identifying them easier over time. Hope this helps!

#help I assumed D was wrong because I interpreted "market has grown" as there are more sellers in the apricot business aka the supply has grown, could someone clarify why this is wrong or right? and what does it mean for the market to go up or down? help i was a psych major lmao