@

I had the same layout. Do you remember anything from the 1st LR? That was the one I had a bit of trouble finishing.

Unlike everyone else, the Virus game didn't bother me nearly as much as the second game. I wasted way to much time on that game :(

Lol Laquer. That wasn't a fun reading passage but I don't think the questions were particularly hard.

Had three LR. Two of them I breezed through. One, I had to guess on 2-3 questions. Hopefully, that was the experimental.

Of the 2 that I didn't have much trouble with, one had the question about journalists and entertainment. Chess was in one of those two.

I'll take a shot at it. My interpretation of B is that while it may or may not describe Tim's argument (since his grandfather could be unknown information), the fact that he is challenging the opinion with something unknown doesn't make his argument weaker. In fact, that could strengthen his argument.

In a different problem, B could also describe a different argument where Tim cites previously unknown research and had a credible argument.

A, on the other hand, does demonstrate a weakness. Only one counterexample to support his argument can be considered a major weakness.

C. Yep. It is not explicitly discounted.

D. Tim doesn't argue that health and longevity are unrelated to each other. He's claiming that smoking didn't impact his grandfather's heath, which is demonstrated by his longevity.

E. You got it.

A: By itself, it doesn't. But it does if the criteria which determines its level of success is not the one being criticized.

In this case, answer D gives us a criteria.

It's not just that the film is successful. A film's success can be measured any number of ways. It can be successful based on revenue, historical accomplishment, artistic accomplishment, or critical reception. A financially successful film can still be criticized for poor acting. In this case a critic could argue that the film was not successful (in their interpretation of success) due to acting.

But if we take D into account, this changes. D defines success as being successful within their genre. So a horror film is successful if it has horror or a comedy is successful if it has humor. Again, we can disagree with this classification of success, but in this case, if their definition of success is true, we can justify criticism of critics who focus on a factor irrelevant to the film's success.

^ ad hominem, appeal to authority, irrelevant response etc. etc.

^That's proving my point. I've already refuted your arguments, repeatedly, using reason. Generally, that would be sufficient. However, because you, against all odds, still believe that C correct, it can be helpful to bring support external support. Of course, telling you that you are wrong because everyone else, including the people who designed the test believe you are isn't a logical argument that proves you are wrong. However, in this discussion, its purpose is to make you doubt your answer since any reasonable logical response has failed. It's an appeal to ethos because clearly an appeal to logos isn't working.

If you get an answer wrong on the LSAT, simply accept that you are wrong and try to figure out why that's the case. You aren't doing yourself any favors by accepting a wrong answer as the truth and arguing for it.

I'll try one last time.

It doesn't matter that you think D is flawed. What matters is that it actually supports the conclusion. You can clearly see that it does.

C isn't reasonable because it doesn't support the conclusion. In order to support the conclusion you have to give us a reason that the critics shouldn't criticize the film for having over-styled characters. Indicating that some form of stylization needs to be there isn't enough for us dispute their criticism of too much stylization. It's really that simple.

Maybe you don't miss many questions. But that might be precisely why you aren't getting this one. This particular question isn't very difficult or unique. But because you have decided that D is wrong and C is right, you aren't allowing yourself to actually see why the opposite is true. You are still trying to prove that you are right despite that not being the case.

If you are going to ask for help on a question, try to at least internalize the responses rather than going back to the points that you keep repeating (despite them being refuted by me, 7sage, the person who replied to you last time, and LSAT hacks (https://lsathacks.com/explanations/lsat-preptest-73/logical-reasoning-1/q-6/))

Again, it's irrelevant that you think D is flawed as long as it supports the conclusion. It's not flawed. But that's besides the point.

....Maybe that's why you got the question wrong?

Hey, I'm trying to help you understand this question. Don't criticize my logic when yours led you to the wrong answer. The LSAT is heavily scrutinized and bad questions are removed. You didn't find a problem question, you are just wrong. Slow down and re-read everything I said.

There is only one correct answer and 4 answers that are wrong.

D is the only answer that provides any form of support. It doesn't need to confirm the argument, just support it.

Good luck on the test

You are missing that the fact that a stylistic portrayal isn't binary. It's not on or off. One film can be more stylized than the next. Here they are saying that the characters are too stylized. The critics weren't complaining about the fact that any amount of stylization was present, they were complaining about too much of it.

Even if a stylistic portrayal is necessary (as C would indicate), it doesn't mean a critic shouldn't complain about too much stylization. We need a reason to say that they are wrong in focusing on this flaw.

If a recipe calls for salt, you should add salt. But is it possible that you add too much salt? Yes. Saying that salt is needed for the recipe to work isn't enough to justify having a pound of salt on the dish. This is the reason for C being the wrong answer.

But saying that a dish is good as long as there is a steak means that the dish can still be good despite the pound of salt. In fact, the salt doesn't determine if the dish is good, the steak does. Therefore, food critics should worry about whether there is any steak or not. Criticism focusing on the salt is misguided because the salt doesn't determine the quality of the dish. This is why D is the correct answer.

That's not a flaw for D. If the most important factor for a comedy is that it's funny, criticizing it for not being realistic is misguided because it's not focusing on the most important factor, humor. If D is correct, it gives the critic a reason to say the others are misguided in focusing on something that isn't the most important factor.

But C doesn't make it so it's not an issue at all.

Simply,

Suggesting that comedies should find humor in stylistic portrayals doesn't help or hurt the argument. Even if a stylistic portrayal is necessary, a critic can still say that a film is too stylized. There are different levels of stylization. Perhaps a critic could say that the film needs to have a little in order for the humor to work but this level just ruins the film.

The critic isn't saying that the over stylization isn't an issue at all. They are saying that it could be problematic but the film succeeds for other reasons (it's funny). You don't need to justify that the film is stylized. You need to justify why the critics shouldn't care that it's justified! (hint: because there is something else they should prioritize)

What you need to strengthen the argument is something that suggests that the critics are focusing on the wrong thing when criticizing style. D suggests that they should worry about how it succeeds as a comedy before anything else.

The stimulus is basically saying that the only thing about the comedy that's relevant is that the film is funny. It's saying that criticizing the film for being too stylized is missing the point.

C. The critic is not arguing that the comedy needs be to stylistic or that humor and stylistic portrayals need to go together. The critic is saying that the film's humor takes precedence over other factors (like being over stylized). Saying that a stylistic portrayal is necessary doesn't help or hurt the argument either way. You can still over stylize a film even if a stylistic portrayal is necessary.

Conversely, if the opposite were true, and that film comedies shouldn't find humor in their stylistic portrayals, the film could still be a successful comedy (even with the broken rule) because the most important thing is that the film is funny.

D. Comedy is a genre. The critic is saying that the most important thing for a comedy is that it's funny. Therefore, other critics are wrong in criticism of something that succeeds in it's intent. In this case, the intent is to be funny because that's what it takes to be successful within it's genre.

4:30 EST on the dot.