Ignore all ACs regarding Japan. Why? Because the stimulus states that Japan is already in a good position. Europe is the problem so look for ACs with Europe. That leaves you with D and E. The first sentence of the stimulus states that to be the most successful economy, one must train as many people as possible. That is the necessary part and therefore that must be in the AC. That leaves you with D only.
Plus, E talks about "most other countries" which are irrelevant, meaning that they were not mentioned in the stimulus.
Disregard everything that comes before the "since" phrase. The "since" phrase/aka the Sub C is the main part to look at.
First, the argument is stating two conclusions with only one evidence. One cannot conclude two things with only one evidence.
Plus, the two conclusions that the argument proposes contradict. Why? Because one thing cannot be said to be "unique" ("printed by Gutenberg") yet simultaneously be attributed as a practice of an entire century ("purportedly fifteenth-century").
Hope this helped.
The stimulus is intended to confuse you with fancy wording but just focus on this: More mass, More light.
The stimulus ends with only mentioning "less light". Then, the answer must mention "less mass".
B says it: "mass...were too low".
C cannot be an answer because the stimulus states that "money is an artificial human invention" yet C only applies to things that are "not invention".
For this question, it's easy to get tripped up by the premises. Personally, I'd recommend you to skim over the premises and place your focus on the conclusion.
"Independent" translates to "not dependent", right? A states that exactly, "not...influenced by other".
Hope this helped.
Quick explanation for those who are confused:
Stimulus:
Conclusion: The success of the Land Party in 1935 was due to: The specific addressing of concerns of rural and semirural (agricultural and small business) groups & Depths of economic problems of these groups
Answer Choices:
A. Irrelevant. Refers to preceding elections yet the conclusion is only targeted toward this year's election and the success of the Land Party.
B. Strengthens.
C. Strengthens. When economic distress was prevalent, Land Party has success. This is a positive correlation.
D. Strengthens.
E. Strengthens.
Quick explanation for those who are confused:
Stimulus:
1. Taylor: The claim is suspect (like all such mathematically precise claims) because such exactitude can never be established by science.
2. Sandra: We should not doubt the reliability of the claim just because of its exactitude/precision.
Answer Choices:
A. Irrelevant. Not mentioned in Sandra's response.
B. Sandra would not disagree with this statement. Sandra argues that it is possible and we must not doubt such exactitude on the basis of its mathematical precision.
C. Irrelevant. Sandra does not even mention the study of verbal and nonverbal communication.
D. Correct. Exactly what Sandra said.
E. What? No.
Quick explanation for those who are still confused:
Stimulus:
1. Proponents: Electric cars will be widely used when batteries are available & They will result in a decrease in environmental damage
2. Author: All power sources that are used to produce batteries are damaging to the environment.
Answer Choices:
A. Correct. Proponents believe that there will be a decrease in environmental damage. Yet, the author notes that the production of battery design produces inevitable environmental damage.
B. Irrelevant. Electric cars' popularity over other types of cars was not mentioned in the stimulus.
C. Out of place. It does not align with the flow of the previous sentence.
D. Taken too far. Requires an assumption that the considerable environmental damage will increase the total level of emissions.
E. Taken too far. Requires an assumption that the increase in environmental damage from battery production will not produce a net reduction in environmental degradation.
Yup, exactly. Option B best strengthens the conclusion (bacteria's exposure to the heavy metals in the sewage sludge has somehow promoted their resistance to antibiotics) by showing when bacteria that live in sewage sludge are NOT exposed to heavy metals, they are not resistant to antibiotics.
In a parallel flaw question, your goal is to find an answer that best matches the structure of the argument in the stimulus. The argument in the stimulus is a flawed argument with the following structure: Most A is B. Most A with B is C. Therefore, most A is C.
Now, option B is actually a valid argument with an argument structure that differs from the one above. Therefore, it cannot be the right answer.
Hi, leave a comment below if you'd like to proctor each other for a prep test this Saturday (2/11) over Zoom! I thought it'd be a good way to keep each other motivated and accountable while also getting in the rhythm of an actual test setting.
We can coordinate to find a time that works.
For students who have just begun to study for the LSAT, it's okay to use such indicators to help you find the conclusion. Yet, at a certain point in your studies, it is important for you to be able to spot the conclusion without the help of these indicators. Once you actually do, you'll realize that you are at a level of actually understanding the entirety of the conclusion.
I can the stimulus down for you:
The current theory about earthquakes holds that they are caused by joining plates or rock sliding past each other; the plates are pressed together until powerful forces overcome the resistance. : Quite obviously, this is not the voice of the author; it is simply a piece of background information aka the premise.
As plausible as this may sound, at least one thing remains mysterious on this theory. : Okay, we see the voice of the author coming in. The author states that the theory mentioned in the previous sentence is kind of off. By this point, I'm expecting that the author will provide reasoning for this statement.
The overcoming of such resistance should create enormous amounts of heat.: This is another piece of background information for the reasoning.
Bust so far no increases in temperature unrelated to weather have been detected following earthquakes..: This completes the reasoning.
The argument is concluding: The current theory fails to explain at least one mystery posed by the author and therefore cannot fully explain the earthquake data.
It is undoubtedly hard to find the "right flaw" in this argument and answer B sort of sounds like a stretch too. Therefore, for this question, it is better to eliminate all wrong answers and settle on answer B as the best out of the options given.
It is true that self-reported data could very well be accurate yet as humans we all make mistakes and because it is self-reported data, it is likely to be more subjective in comparison to computer-generated data such as the flight reports.
Because the conclusion heavily relies on the reliability of these two pieces of evidence and the subjectivity of evidence may influence its accuracy, it can be considered a flaw.
You can simply ask yourself, are the facts that the report with little erosion was prepared by university scientists and the report with heavy erosion was prepared by scientists from a private firm enough for you to thoroughly understand why the two reports had vastly different results?
Your answer is probably going to a "no". Therefore, it is not the correct answer.
Hey, if I'm understanding your question correctly, you're asking "why is that that the concert in question can't still be considered as popular even if the concerts being compared are NOT super popular", right?
Here are my answers:
1. What if the compared concert series are earning $20 worth of revenue from selling T-shirts? If the concert in question is earning $20.50 worth of revenue, then it would be right to say that the concert in question is gaining more revenues than the other concert series. Yet, can you say that a revenue of $20.50 proves its popularity? I would doubt so.
2. The revenue gained by selling T-shirts is simply not an adequate indication of the overall popularity.
Think of it this way: The stimulus is saying that alternative medicine - no effect. To weaken this, you just gotta look for an AC that argues that alternative medicine - effect.
D does that perfectly. Alternative medicine has an effect of promoting healing.
The AC refers to alternative medicine as "medical treatment" as an umbrella term. The idea of patients' receiving psychological relief commonly occurs in all types of medicines.