Sec, Q#: S3, Q23

Question Type: Parallel flaw

Summary: Species change and how it relates to adaptation and mutations

Anticipated argument: The flaw is a classic sufficiency/necessity mix up. The premises are saying that surviving dramatic evolutionary change implies the development of new evolutionary adaptions which implies mutations frequently occur. The conclusion is that mutations imply the survival of dramatic evolutionary change, which is incorrect. The correct AC will be a sufficiency/necessity mix up.

Answer choice explanations:

A: Incorrect. This is valid. A sturdy wall implies that a stone wall is properly built, which implies that every stone is supporting another stone, the conclusion that a sturdy wall implies a wall where every stone is supporting another stone is correct.

B: Incorrect. Slightly confused by this answer choice but I think it’s suggesting that a play that is performed in front of a different audience every time implies that there will not be the same reaction from two audiences. I think it’s just saying it twice in two different ways. Don’t see a clear conclusion.

C: Correct. Because the premise states that being morally upright implies being a perfectly honest person which implies be totally truthful in every situation. The conclusion states that being a perfectly honest person implies being morally upright, which is a sufficiency/necessity error.

D: Incorrect. Since having a productive herb garden implies soil that is well drained, which implies good soil, having a productive herb garden implies good soil, which is a valid conclusion.

E: Incorrect. This incorrectly conflates a healthy diet with overall health.

Correct/Incorrect?: Correct.

Same here

Sec, Q#: S2, Q21

Question Type: Most strongly supported

Summary: Most large nurseries sell disease free raspberry plants to growers. This shipment of raspberry plants carries a virus

Anticipated argument:

Answer choice explanations:

A: Incorrect. We don’t know about what guarantees are given by non-large nurseries. We only know that most large nurseries guarantee their plants to be disease free.

B: Incorrect. We don’t know anything about the size of Johnson and can’t conclude the size of Johnson from the stimulus. All we know is that large nurseries only sell plants that a guaranteed to be disease free.

C: Incorrect. We cannot conclude anything about the size of Wally’s Plants based on the size of Johnson.

D: Incorrect. We don’t know anything about how well-run Wally’s is. Additionally, this almost contradicts a premise given in the passage, that most (but not all) large nurseries do sell raspberry plants to commercial growers.

E: Correct. Because we are told that large nurseries only sell plants that are guaranteed to be disease free. Since the plants given to Johnson were diseased, it is reasonable to conclude that if Wally’s is a large plant nursery the plants were not entirely as they were guaranteed to be.

Sec, Q#: S2, Q19

Question Type: Must be true

Summary: In a town, most pet stores sell birds and most of those stores that sell birds sell fish. However, if a store doesn’t sell birds but sells fish, it sells gerbils and no pet stores in this town sell gerbils.

Summary of logic: Most pet store in West Calverton (pwc) --m-> sell EB --m-> TF but if TF and /EB → G. Pwcio → /G

Translation of above logic: most pet stores in west calverton sell exotic birds and most of those stores that sell exotic birds also sell tropical fish. But if a store sells tropical fish and no exotic birds, it sells gerbils and no pet stores that are independently owned in west calverton sell gerbils.

Answer choice explanations:

A: Incorrect. We don’t have the premises to conclude this.

B: Incorrect. PWC → /sell TF, EB, and G

C: Incorrect. PWC --s-> G and EB

D: Correct. If we negate the statement TF and /EB → gerbils, we see that if you do not sell gerbils, it is not the case that you sell tropical fish and not exotic birds (/g → not (TF and /EB). If you are an independently owned pet store in west calverton you do not sell gerbils. The logic of this is PWCIO → /G. If we link this up with the negated statement about tropical fish and not selling exotic birds we find: PWIO → /G → not (EF and /EB). Therefore we can conclude that if you are an independently owned pet store in west calverton, you do not sell gerbils and therefore it is not the case that you sell tropical fish but not exotic birds.

E: Incorrect. PWO ---> /TF → EB

Sec, Q#: S2, Q 18

Question Type: Principle (except)

Summary:Vanessa says programmers should work together so that no one writes code that others can’t understand. Jo says that the best programmers who keep projects afloat work best alone, so they should be allowed to do so.

Answer choice explanations:

A: Incorrect. This follows both principles because neither are the most productive and they have been assigned to work together.

B: Incorrect. This follows both principles because the two programmers are working together to prevent mistakes and neither is the most productive programmer on the team.

C: Incorrect. This follows both principles because both programmers are working together, but neither are the most productive programer.

D: Correct. This violates the principle that the most productive programmer should be allowed to work on their own. In this case, Yolanda is the most productive programmer and she is being assigned to work with Mike.

E: Incorrect. This follows both principles because Kevin and Amy have been assigned to work together and neither is unusually productive.

Sec, Q#: S2, Q12

Question Type: Necessary assumption

Summary: Ps were aquatic dinosaurs and experts think they chased their prey over long distances because they have fins that are similar to bird wings

Anticipated argument: The same physical qualities that allow birds to fly long distances allow fish to swim long distances

Answer choice explanations:

A: Incorrect. You don’t have to believe this for the argument to hold. You could believe that birds and reptiles have completely different ancestors but that they share a common feature that benefits them both in a similar way.

B: Incorrect. Why would this need to be true? You could easily believe that there are other marine reptiles who have long thin fins and still believe that plesiosauromorphs hunted over long distances because of the size and shape of their fins.

C: Incorrect. This is such an unnecessarily large blanket statement. You could believe that there are a myriad of ways that marine animals in general meet their caloric requirements and still believe that plesiosauromorphs hunted over long distances and that the evidence of that is that they have long and thin fins.

D: Incorrect. Another unnecessarily huge statement. You can believe that only one marine mammal (plesiosauromorphs) is specialized for long distance swimming and maintain a valid argument.

E: Correct. In order for the argument to hold you must believe that the shape of a animal’s fin impacts its swimming the same way a birds wings impact its flying. You cannot believe that the two ideas are unrelated, since the argument is predicated on the premise that the fins of the (plesiosauromorphs) are similar to wing of a bird and both travel long distances.

Hi there. I'm a little confused at your question but if what you mean by "general question" is an acceptable situation question (ex. Which one of the following is an acceptable order for the guests to sit in?), those questions remain the first question in every game even in the digital version of the test. J.Y. typically answers the questions in the order that they are given. If you want to skip to other questions in other games, you're free to do so in the digital tester. Although, it's probably smarter to answer the majority of the questions for each game at one time as starting a new game would require you to set up a new master game board. Hope that makes sense!

Sec, Q#: S2, Q4

Question Type: Most strongly supported

Summary: CM wants to buy the majority of shares in a newspaper which is majority owned by a larger company. But the company refuses to sell their shares. Analysts predict though that CM will soon have the majority of shares.

Anticipated argument:

Answer choice explanations:

A: Incorrect. Even if this were true, their not owning shares of any other newspaper would not support the conclusion that Carol will own the newspaper soon.

B: Incorrect. So what? She could easily offer them lots of money and they could say no. In order for this AC to be correct, we would have to assume that the offer of more money would automatically lead to their wanting to sell it.

C: Incorrect. And? Just because she’s the only person interested in buying the shares doesn’t mean she’s going to get to buy the shares. This doesn’t support the conclusion.

D: Incorrect. If we make the assumption that Carol will have access to purchase more shares from someone else (which would make her majority owner) this AC could be correct. But we aren’t given that information and it is improper to assume it.

E: Correct. If true, this would support the analysts’ conclusions. Since Carol’s only obstacle is the fact the Azedcorp won’t sell the shares, that obstacle would be removed if they were forced to sell their shares.

Sec, Q#: S2, Q1

Question Type: Principle

Summary: Children were taught the word stairs while walking up and down stairs and then misidentified a ladder for the word stairs when shown a video of a ladder.

Anticipated argument: In some cases, children learn concepts kinesthetically and misapply those concepts to things they are taught visually.

Answer choice explanations:

A: Incorrect. The principle does not follow because the stimulus does not say the word stairs was repeated multiple times to the children.

B: Incorrect. The principle is not correct because the children were not shown how the object was used, they used the object. (i.e. they didn’t watch their teacher climb stairs, they climed stairs themselves)

C: Incorrect. The principle does not follow because the stimulus says nothing to support the idea that teaching the children the word earlier in their lives was more effective than teaching it later.

D: Correct. The principle is properly applied to the study because the children observed how the object denoted by the word is used (learned the word stairs by climbing stairs) and misapplied that word to an object that is similarly used (a person can climb both ladders and stairs).

E: Incorrect. The principle is not correct because because we have no support for the idea that children learn best when no other objects are present.

Correct/Incorrect?:

If incorrect, explain where your reasoning was wrong and why:

Sec, Q#: S4, Q26

Question Type: Parallel flaw

Summary: Countries with an undereducated population are weak politically and economically but countries that show a financial commitment to education are strong.

Anticipated argument: Making the assumption that just because a system has been put in place to make something happen, that thing has happened or will happen.

Answer choice explanations:

A: Incorrect. Doesn’t mirror structure of passage.

B: Correct. This is the only example that makes an assumption and introduces an unrelated topic as the example does. The AC assumes that manipulating others easily is a good trait for someone running for public office as the stimulus assumes that spending money on education results in a more educated population.

C: Incorrect. This is a very straightforward negation mistake, and is not parallel to what is happening in the stimulus.

D: Incorrect. This isn’t the same structure.

E: Incorrect. Not the same structure and also the food thing is random.

Correct/Incorrect?: Correct.

Sec, Q#: S4, Q25

Question Type: Sufficient assumption

Answer choice explanations:

A: Incorrect. /SI —> /RL

B: Correct. /RL —> /SI

C: Incorrect. /RL —> /PGL

D: Incorrect. I guess this could be right if social integrity itself and social integrity prevailing were the same idea, but I don’t think they are and answer choice B seems straightword and correct.

E: Incorrect. /IF —> /RL

Correct/Incorrect?: Correct.

Sec, Q#: S4, Q20

Question Type: Necessary assumption

Summary: Many important medicines have been discovered from plants in tropical rainforests. Many plants also haven’t been studied yet. Therefore we must preserve the rainforest or we will not have important medicines developed.

Anticipated argument: The remaining plants that haven’t been studied contain medicinal value.

Answer choice explanations:

A: Correct. If you did not believe that there are new substances to be discovered, you could not believe that preserving tropical rainforest will lead to the development of new medicine.

B: Incorrect. You don’t need to believe this to believe that the rainforests should be preserved. In fact, this weakens the argument.

C: Incorrect. You can believe that the majority of plant species in tropical rainforests do not have medicinal value. You could just believe that a select few (that will be destroyed if we don’t preserve the rainforest!) will be destroyed.

D: Incorrect. You could believe that just some plant species studied by scientists will yield substances of medicinal value. It’s not necessary to believe that all substances would be discovered.

E: Incorrect. This is a GREAT trap answer though. This is saying that tropical rainforest should be preserved, but the argument is merely stating what will happen if they are not preserved.

Correct/Incorrect?: Correct.

Sec, Q#: S4, Q19

Question Type: Principle

Summary: If there are no fully qualified candidates working for the company currently, then you should hire the most productive person.

Anticipated argument: Delacruz works for the company.

Answer choice explanations:

A: Incorrect. If both candidates are fully qualified and neither works at the company, there would be no reason for them to hire Delacruz over Krall.

B: Incorrect. We do not know (based on this AC) that Krall does not work for the company.

C: Incorrect. This doesn’t help much. We would need to know that Krall works at the company and is not fully qualified.

D:Incorrect. If they both don’t work for the company there is no reason why Delacruz would be hired over Krall, unless Delacruz would be more productive.

E: Correct. If neither Krall or Delacruz work for the company, Delacruz would be the person to hire if he is more productive.

Correct/Incorrect?: Correct.

Okay I literally hate this question so much. This is a PRIME example of the LSAT saying that they don't want you to make assumptions but forcing you to make significant assumptions in order to get a question correct. I understand why the correct answer is correct, I just think this question is bullshit. That is all.

Sec, Q#: S4, Q8

Question Type: Weaken

Answer choice explanations:

A: Incorrect. This would strengthen the argument.

B: Incorrect. Okay...and? This is just a piece of contextual information. Even if this were true it would not weaken the argument that the asteroid was not responsible for the extinction of most dinosaurs.

C: Incorrect. The argument isn’t saying the asteroid wasn’t responsible for ANY extinctions, only that it was not responsible for most extinctions.

D: Incorrect. Just because there is no evidence doesn’t mean there wasn’t another asteroid. What if the evidence hasn’t been discovered? What if it is covered up? Lots of holes here.

E: Correct. If it was true that most dinosaurs lived near the place of impact, that would severely weaken the argument that the asteroid was not responsible for the extinctions, since that argument is predicated on the premise that asteroid strikes kill organisms nearby but not worldwide.

Correct/Incorrect?: Correct.

Sec, Q#: S4, Q6

Question Type: Weakening

Summary: Modern deep diving whales have porous bones, a whale from a long time ago had porous bones, therefore it was deep diving.

Anticipated argument: Scientists discovered that the whale from a long time ago is incapable of deep diving.

Answer choice explanations:

A: Incorrect. What does it matter that some have to surface after dives? That doesn’t weaken the argument.

B Incorrect. This doesn’t weaken the argument. The argument could still stand that this specific marine reptile has a similarity to this deep diving whale.

C: Correct. If the bones are porous in most modern and prehistoric species, it would make the fact that this particular prehistoric reptile species has porous bones irrelevant.

D: Incorrect. Irrelevant. The argument is using the characteristic they do share to prove its point. What does it matter if they have differing characteristics as well? If they have this one in common, the argument stands as is.

E: Incorrect. This doesn’t weaken the argument. This statement does not contradict the fact that whales and the marine reptile have the same type of bones, which could mean that they were both deep sea divers. This only adds extra context to the marine reptile anatomy.

Correct/Incorrect?: Correct.

Sec, Q#: S2, Q23

Question Type: Parallel flaw

Summary: Every brick house has a front yard, most houses with front years have two stories, therefore most houses have two stories.

Answer choice explanations:

A: Incorrect. Conclusion P-m->RO

B: Incorrect. L-m-> RO -m->P

C: Incorrect. Has the word not which is not related to the example in stim.

D: Correct. L—> PS -m-> /RO which is analogous to HRS —> FY -m-> TS. The conclusions also match.

E: Incorrect. Negation of PS in the conclusion but not in premise, which is different from the example given.

Correct/Incorrect?: Correct.

Sec, Q#: S2, Q19

Question Type: Resolve, reconcile, explain

Summary: Journalists used quotes to support false or unsupported claims. At the same time, journalists are less likely to challenge those claims.

Anticipated argument: None, it’s an EXCEPT question.

Answer choice explanations:

A: Incorrect. If newspaper publishers perceive that people will cancel their subscriptions, that could explain why fewer journalists challenge these claims (to satisfy publishers).

B: Incorrect. If journalists have less knowledge of the subject areas with which challenge claims, it would make sense that they challenge claims less often.

C:Incorrect. If this is true it would explain why journalists are hesitant to express competing views to those in their articles.

D: Correct. This wouldn’t explain the discrepancy. I feel like if this were true journalists would be MORE likely to challenge claims.

E: Incorrect. If journalists who challenge claims are seen as violating a professional norm it would make sense that they are less likely to challenge claims.

Correct/Incorrect?: Correct.

Sec, Q#: S2 Q9

Question Type: Main point

Summary: Instruments should be classified based on the mechanism that makes sound come from it. Since small hammers hit strings to make noise, a piano should be classified as a percussion instrument.

Anticipated argument: The piano is a percussion instrument.

Answer choice explanations:

A: Incorrect. Although this is said in the passage, it is a supporting statement, not a supported statement.

B: Incorrect. The way musicians interact with instruments is not even mentioned in the stimulus.

C: Incorrect. We don’t know that some people believe this.

D: Incorrect. This is the opposite of the main conclusion.

E:Correct because the sentence before (re: classification of musical instruments) and the sentence after (explanation of how the piano makes sound) support the MC that the piano is a percussion instrument.

Correct/Incorrect?: Correct.

Sec, Q#: S2, Q17

Question Type: Analogy

Summary: Standard antibiotics have one active ingredient, while herbal antibiotics have many.

Anticipated argument:Single guest

Answer choice explanations:

A: Correct.

B: Incorrect. Several dozen guests represents the many active ingredients in herbal antibacterial remedies.

C: Incorrect. The pleasure experienced by a single guest represents bacterial resistance.

D: Incorrect a cook represents a specific strain of bacteria.

E: Incorrect. Relevant, not mentioned in stimulus.

Correct/Incorrect?: Correct.

Sec, Q#: S2, Q3

Question Type: MBT

Summary: Political administrations that protect liberties and are economically successful are overall successful.

Anticipated argument: This administration is an overall success.

Answer choice explanations:

A: How do we know this? All we know is that they protect individual liberties and do not protect the environment.

B: Wrong. We don’t know that it’s not successful. It could be if it were economically successful.

C: Correct. If the administration is both economically successfully and protects individual liberties then it is by definition successful.

D: Irrelevant. How would we know that?

E: Absolutely false. No.

Correct/Incorrect?: Correct.

If incorrect, explain where your reasoning was wrong and why:

Sec, Q#: S2, Q7

Question Type: Disagree

Summary: An argument about school aged children and whether or not they should be studying chess vs. something with more practical value like science.

Anticipated argument: Whether or not chess is the most valuable way for children to expend their mental energy.

Answer choice explanations:

A: Sklar’s response doesn’t contradict that chess promotes mental activity, only that chess is not the best way to spend mental energy.

B: Sklar is not arguing that MANY activities promote mental maturity just as well as chess, but that science is a better way to spend the mental energy that chess requires.

C: Incorrect. Talbert does not argue that chess is socially valuable.

D: Correct. Talbert doesn’t even bring up teaching chess, but Sklar brings up an objection to teaching chess, therefore they are arguing about whether or not children should be taught to play chess. (Or rather, Sklar is arguing about it.)

E: Not at all this has nothing to do with what is happening in the stimulus.

Correct/Incorrect?: Correct.

If incorrect, explain where your reasoning was wrong and why:

Passage 4

Breakdown of passage

Time to read passage: 3m 46s

Passage A :

Paragraph 1: Animals do not vocalize communication based on the way they perceive other animals are acting or how they might respond. Animals respond to stimuli.

Paragraph 2: As an example of this, a certain species of frog calls out to females when it is ready to mate, but there is no evidence suggesting that the frog knows that the call will have this affect.

Main point: Animals strictly communicate based on a response to stimuli and do not perceive the intentions, actions, or feelings of other animals.

Author’s tone: Persuasive

Role of different paragraphs: Paragraph 1 introduces the idea of animal vocalizations and Paragraph 2 is dedicated to providing examples that persuade the reader to believe that animal vocalizations are a simple response to stimuli.

Passage B :

Paragraph 1: Humans communication is creative while animal communication is rigid.

Paragraph 2: A good example of this is lying, which is something some researchers believe is unique to humans. Lying requires the perception of someone else, purposeful deceit, and knowledge that the person lying is being deceitful. All things which some researchers say animals can’t do.

Paragraph 3: The argument that animals don’t have conscious intention because there is so evidence that they have conscious intention is circular. There is a new study that may support the fact that previously held ideas about animal communication is incorrect.

Main point: Some researchers believe that animals don’t have conscious intention when they communicate but this could be false.

Author’s tone: Supportive of the idea that animals can consciously

Role of different paragraphs: Paragraph 1 is context. Paragraph 2 gives an example of the differences between animals and human communication, with support for the idea that animals don’t communicate consciously. Paragraph 3 contradict Paragraph 2 and plants a seed of doubt by introducing a study that may contradict the info in Paragraph 2.

Line supports

14. 27-29

15. 53-56

16. 63-65

17. 13-17

18. 9-11, 55-56

19. 53-55

Passage 2

Breakdown of passage

Time to read passage: 2m 50s

Paragraph 1: Introduction to the idea that forged art can trick critics. The example used is that a guy forged a painting and critics praised the forgery and praised its artistic brilliance.

Paragraph 2: Is forgery inferior? Why or why not? Alfred Lessing has commented on this topic.

Paragraph 3: Lessing believes that forgery, even when artistically brilliant, is inferior to authentic art because it lacks the intangible quality that makes a piece of art a masterpiece. Part of measuring artistry is originality, so a forgery, by definition, cannot be artistically brilliant.

Paragraph 4: Because the forger painted the painting after the original artist had already created a new style and approach to painting, the forged painting is inferior to an original.

Main point: According to Alfred Lessing, forgeries are inferior to authentic paintings because they lack originality and therefore lack artistry.

Author’s tone: Supportive of Lessing’s view as evidence by the language of the last paragraph

Role of different paragraphs: Paragraph 1 introduces the forger and story of how critics praised him. Paragraph 2 poses the question of whether or not forgery is inferior to original works and introduces Alfred Lessing. Paragraph 3 outlines Lessing’s views that forgery is inferior because it’s not original and provides support for that view. Paragraph 4 is persuasive and attempts to get the reader to sympathize with Lessing’s views.

Line supports

7. 47-51

8. 29-40

9. 14-16

10. 13

11. 49-56

12. 21-23

13. 31-39

Correct/Incorrect: 4/7.

Incorrect explanations:

#9 – I originally selected A because I zeroed in on the phrase “persisted in believing” and immediately connected that with the word “inflexible” in answer choice A. I figured that persisting in believing a fact you know not to be true translated to an inflexible attitude. I dismissed answer choice E because I had chosen A, believed it to be true, and was victim to an over-confidence error.

#11 – I chose answer choice E because of the last paragraph and the author’s statements about the inability of van Meegeren to be original because he utilized Vermeer’s techniques centuries later. I will admit that the use of the word “innovative” in the passage also drew me to this answer choice. I dismissed answer choice B because I made an assumption about what “historical circumstances” meant. In my head, I assumed this meant historical period. For example, the fact that this painting was done during the Civil War impacts it’s artistic value. Since that wasn’t talked about in the passage at all I dismissed it immediately as an AC.

#12 – I chose answer choice C because the passage said “superbly executed forgeries” suggesting that there was a was a forgery could both successfully and unsuccessfully be executed.

Passage 1

Breakdown of passage

Time to read passage: 2m 15s

Paragraph 1: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a significant human rights agreement, but it may not be strong enough according to critics

Paragraph 2: The document passed through the hands of many member countries and includes an outline of everything from basic human rights to the right to education and leisure.

Paragraph 3: The declaration is non-binding and could be made stronger if there was some kind of enforcement mechanism stated in it.

Main point: The UDHR is an important human rights document that could be stronger if it was a binding document.

Author’s tone: In support of the declaration and wants it to be made even stronger, as evidenced by her use of the word “clearly” in the third paragraph.

Role of different paragraphs: Paragraph 1 introduces the UDHR and explains its significance. Paragraph 2 explains the process by which the document was created and outlines some of the content of the document. Paragraph 3 discusses the non-binding element of the document and tries to convince the reader that making the document more enforceable is a positive thing.

Line supports

1. 46

2. 15

3. 45-47

4. 50-53

5. 45-50

6. 16-22

Correct/Incorrect: All correct