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
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.
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
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.
Line 58 also says historical significance (@ question 11)
Correct me if I'm wrong but this is one of the valid argument forms in terms of logic
A--m-->B
A--m-->C
conclusion
B--m-->C
In this case B and C are contradictory so the premises cannot be true.
I got E pretty quickly because when I read the stim I was like, oh there's obviously something wrong with the program that's making people drop out. But E was just a lot weaker than I thought it would be.
They tried to use the concept of averages to get in our heads but an average means nothing to the individual case
I didn't get from the premise that you can discuss issues freely in public squares. What if there was some sort of security there? I don't know anything about this history so I didn't want to assume that they were able to discuss freely. #help :(
I answered B for 26 because I thought the fact that they continued using Newton's law after Uranus for Mercury was showing that how finding Neptune (while using Newton's law and a diff auxiliary premise) was evidence for Newton, and that's why they continued using it. Would this count as positive evidence for Newton (showing that positive evidence supports a theory) still or am I misunderstanding? #help
For 19, the evidence I used to get to E was in the sentence that mentions symbols it says you would only really decipher it if you knew the significance of the stylized symbols, and I just thought that since the author definitely wasn't there when it happened and nowhere do they indicate that they know these for sure, that the meanings had to be non-conclusive. But the wording you pointed out seems to be much stronger evidence.
I answered C for 12 because of the first paragraph, how they are more in favour of patenting because their funding is partly conditional on patentability. Isn't that support for if they don't patent they won't get funding? That's why they support it now? #help
I noticed the 'ensure' that the other comments are talking about but I eliminated C for a different reason. Just because it made 'one of the highest' (meaning it may not even be the highest) doesn't mean they have to take the offer, so they are not forced into any situation where they need to break the requirements. The government can just not take the offer and take another higher one. They aren't constrained to anything like E (cuz C leaves things out into the open) and so does not mean they 'must' violate one of the requirements.
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
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
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.