I new the weakness was in the "increase" relationship but the correct weakening answer STILL didn't click for me even though I sort of had an idea of what to attack
cindyguo2020253
I remember during the drills in the syllabus there was a slider for expected accuracy/inaccuracy, can you do that when making drills under the Practice tab? For example I want to do harder drills so I would want to put it to like a higher expected wrong answer percentage.
I don't know what happened but I was convinced this was RRE during the timed test and BR and so I clicked A. I don't even understand how that happened, I was so confused about what even was the contradiction that needed to be resolved like I didn't even think for 1 second this was NA. Oh gosh
B is sort of a sufficient necessity confusion.
If the only courses that could be approved are the 1 new course and upper year courses, and you find out that there are approved upper year courses, then some of the ones by the committee had to be approved. But that doesn't mean all the courses the committee received are approved.
Ignoring the Dean's 1 course, this is the logic for the committee
Approved --> Committee --> Upper
You find out that the only approved new courses next year are upper courses. Upper year courses have to be approved from the committee, hence
Approved ←s→ Committee
But if you can't say that EVERY Upper was Approved (ie Upper --> Approved). The stim gives A --> B --> C and answer choice B basically affirms C and therefore C --> A (oldest mistake in the book).
Predatory ‑m→ Short O Process
but that doesn't meant
Short O Process ‑m→ Predatory
Does anyone else get reminded of that synesthesia question near the beginning of the curriculum where the answer to the weakening basically just implied the people were dumb and didn't know what words meant? So funny for the LSAT to have these kind of answers, lol @ JY saying maybe they were a little bit of an idiot
D is saying that the results of the experiment are true but do not really reflect reality, I feel like I don't see this type of weakening often!
Can someone explain to me what countervailing effect means and what it means in this context #help #feedback
I thought the common purpose was to be a good marketing team...like to market the products well and stuff. Now I feel silly for not selecting D because I changed the answer after I was like oh, they're in marketing so they the common goal of marketing things well. #help
I think Question 18 also has support from ~line 33 where it says no known conductors existed so they grew their own? That was what I used to select A
A is correct because it specifically only parallels the FLAW, the missing part of the argument is logically sound so it doesn't need to be paralleled
It's explained in the video, new reporting techniques would reasonably help detect more smaller ones because the medium and large ones are hard to miss. This is similar to other LR questions such as assuming the earliest found artifact is the earliest artifact, when it really is only the earliest one FOUND. Similarly there are likely small tornadoes that exist but went unnoticed before because they were not detected. Only small tornados increased is inconsistent with the alternate hypothesis.
I don't know why I interpreted enforcement of social norms (q14) to mean forcing people to enact the social norms on others (e.g., enforcing people to shame others), not the sanctions that come from breaking the norms (e.g., being shamed) that lead people to follow the norms. This tripped me up and I answered E because I thought passage B didn't explicitly talk about how it motivates people to create new and original recipes.
Also I think this is why recipe websites always have some crazy and sort of irrelevant story before their recipes, so that the article can be marked as original content and they get legal protection and probably some kind of revenue from the webpage.
A–m–>B
A–m–>C
conclusion
B←s→C
B and C are contradictory so the premises can't both be true.
Yes I thought the same thing like it felt like it was defending against a possible weakening point "the Sun only causes like 0.5% of the heat" idk #help #feedback
I thought the flaw was that there doesn't need to be ONE general account/ONE historian to think of an entire explanation, it can be from multiple different accounts and theories that cover parts of it. #help
Can you expand on A? I feel like it is descriptively accurate but why isn't it the answer? #feedback #help
#help I really don't understand how knowing how much you spent already and how much more is needed means it's more than half the total? What does the amount spent being more than the additional amount needed have to do with this? Please help
for 20 B, is the rise in industry not textual evidence for decline in agriculture? #help
Same that's how I got this right too but I didn't really get how the other ones were wrong.
The "not or" here I think is equivalent to "neither nor" which is "not this and not that". If you think about it, if you don't do X or Y, then that means you are not doing either of them, which means you are not X and not Y.
Not X and Y I think (correct me if I'm wrong) is the same thing. I think that not X or not Y is when its /X or /Y.
I also did not understand at first what JY did when he distributed the "not", I thought about it for awhile and this is the best I came up with. Does anyone know which lesson this was covered in?
I didn't notice the most / logic error, I got this right because I thought that the flaw was inferring that something that could be the solution was the only solution, which I guess is similar. IE, that halting industries COULD help, but they doesn't mean that's the only thing that would help and there could very well be other types of intervention that could help.
Basically I thought the conclusion was Effective --> Halt industries and thus if the solution doesn't involve halting industries then it's not effective, e.g., if X isn't halting industries then there's no way it's effective, when nothing in the stim said this because it left it open that other factors may be involved.
A preventable factor would be industrial pollution, and the answer is saying there could be other preventable factors that the stimulus didn't consider.
Line 58 also says historical significance (@ question 11)
This question was so infuriating for me because I did intuitively pick A despite not understanding why. Then I overthought everything and chose D last minute. I should know when to trust my gut. I originally did the contrapositive correctly but I convinced myself that for some reason I was trying to negate a most statement (most As are Bs), which can't be negated, when that's not what this logical relationship even is.