@cazlaw Agreed, only reason I'm deep in the comments is because I got it wrong as well 😆

@cazlaw We do know they are implementing the next decade plan though! The first sentence tells us that they are (the politician just hates that they are).

I think it is warranted in this case to assume that since they are implementing the plan, the next time they replace the signs within the next decade (which they might have already scheduled replacement because in the past they replace signs annually anyway prior to the plan for increased readability [to answer choice C's point]), they will replace them with the new more readable signs.

@cazlaw I think C is the correct answer because it seems to help decipher the "cost" of replacing with new signs. The argument being made by the politician is that the "cost" to replace all the signs (and switch to readable designed signs) within a ten year time period is unjustifiably high.

Now if we go to AC C, Let's say only 0.1% of the signs are replaced annually before this plan with ordinary maintenance. That means that the signs are barely every needing to be replaced. So wow, we are going to have to invest way more money than normal for this project to take down all the current signs and replace them with the more readable signs. Seems like this strengthens that the 10-year sign change plan is going to have a high cost and would be hard to justify.

Let's say 100% of the street signs are replaced annually in the course of ordinary maintenance. Great! We are already spending the time and labor to take down all signs every year! This seems to weaken the argument because how much time and money are we really wasting if the signs are already scheduled to be changed to replace them with new ones, with out city plan the new ones will just now have more readable designs.

So based on how we answer C's, we either strengthen or weaken the argument so it makes sense as a good answer choice.

I see why answer choice A is the correct answer and all the others are incorrect. My one nit-picky gripe with the LSAT writers though is that the correct answer says "some societies" which can be anywhere from one society to almost all. That doesn't seem to make our conclusion that says "more than one society" iron-clad.

@c00lbeans You can flip C, but it doesn't tell us anything about our conclusion: "the invention of money occurred independently in more than one society" to make it follow logically and be air-tight. We already know from sentence #2 that money is an invention, but still have no connection to occurring independently in societies.

@doriesq Here's how I broke it down in my head:

If Skiff's book is published this year, Professor Nguyen vows she will urge the dean to promote Skiff (premise #1). Thus, if Skiff's book is as important and as well written as Skiff claims, he will be promoted (conclusion), for Nguyen will certainly keep her promise (ensures premise #1 will be followed), and the dean will surely promote Skiff if Nguyen recommends it (premise #2).

Premise 1: skiff's book published -> nguyen will urge the dean to promote

Premise 2: nguyen recommends promotion -> dean will promote

Linking premises: skiff's book published -> dean will promote

Conclusion from the argument: skiff's book is important and well-written as he says -> dean will promote

An SA question is looking for us to make the logic air-tight, so what is the gap in the argument?

Well, the conclusion from the argument assumes that "skiff's book is important and well-written" is the same as triggering the linked premises "skiff's book will be published".

So answer choice A fits in that it ties together because it gives us a new premise:

skiff's book is important as he says -> skiff's book published

And now we can link our air-tight logic:

skiff's book is important -> skiff's book published -> dean will promote (yay!)

@arianamathews8 I don't think the answer needs to include well written.

Answer choice A gives us a new rule that bypasses well written to say that the book only needs to be important as Skiff claims (sufficient) to be published. So well written doesn't even matter if we assume answer choice A to be true, because answer choice A gives us that being important is sufficient on its own.

I ended up realizing B is wrong for another reason other than what is contained in the explanation about a wrong trigger. B says that the bill is favored by "most other people" meaning the non-influential people.

But what if in a democracy that exists, most people are influential? The "most other people" becomes the minority of people and therefore makes no sense.

@AdriJ After thinking on this for a while, actions themselves can be inconsistent regardless of who makes them.

Example: A child complains that their teacher lets them run around and play after studying for 30 minutes, but their mom makes them study for an hour before running around. These actions are inconsistent.

In the above, it doesn't matter who says what, the actions differ and are therefore inconsistent, regardless of one person says vs the other says. But I agree that C feels like a trap answer with the stimulus' use of "they" so much.

@Sofialloydstill I think "may sound good" in context of the first paragraph and the rest of the sentence, is in reference to the phenomenon of rivalry "sounding good" as a theory to explain the evidence.

And in general, saying that as humans we are only happy when doing better than others (the phenomenon of rivalry), sounds like a very unflattering and sad take on human nature. The author agrees with that when he calls it an "ignoble tendency" in the last paragraph.

@hlampertbates Based on your quotes you've referenced, you may be interpreting the explanations wrong.

When the explanation says the the first document "doesn't point out the lack of clarity", they are referring to the document in the answer choice "Why the Current Criteria for Professional Competence in Welding Have Not Been Effectively Applied". The word "document" referenced in the explanation doesn't refer to the passages!

@BoazMouzon

1. Most students (more than 50%) attended every class.

2. Every student that received lower than a B-, missed a class.

We know that more than half the students attended every class from #1. Then we also know that none of those students that attended every class had lower than a B- from #2 because if you received lower than a B-, you were part of that group that missed at least a class. That means

more than half the students -> attended every class (#1) -> did NOT get lower than a B- (#2) and therefore received a B- or higher

I think this answer is more focused on exploiting that the argument is assuming the prize winners chose for themselves. The "employers chose it" is merely just an alternative explanation brought forward in an AC to show that an alternative possibility being presented breaks (weakens) the logic of the argument that concludes these winners have "recognized" the Acme plan is the best and therefore it is the best for everyone else with similar needs.

@JebFarneth I think an explicit benefit is that the use of someone outside lawyer is still a partially reimbursed legal service. The sentence before the one highlighted by 7Sage in A's explanation says members have access to legal services either "totally prepaid or partially reimbursed". Considering the next sentence says that plan's staff lawyers must are fully covered by membership, I'm assuming that the means the non-staff lawyers services are the ones that are partially reimbursed.

@mvivot I think a big part of what makes this answer right is the word "may". If a historian may tend to do something, that doesn't really imply much other than its in the realm of possibilities that a historian might do it. Which I think is very fair to assume

@Hanifa I'd say the boilerplate as a jumping off point for her criticism rather than a comparison. She uses a common view she has a negative connotation on already ("boilerplate technological determinism") and tells us that Weiner's is even more extreme in his "wrongness" than our average Joe.

For example, if I cried from rooftops that LSAT writers were sadists, Ginsburg could say that I go a little beyond "boilerplate LSAT student overreactions". Ginsburg has a negative view of these "overreactions" and uses that boilerplate negative view as a jumping off point to further critique my more extreme take speculating the pain-enjoying tastes of LSAT writers.

@Njbrunette I thought the same!

@ArthurMorgan Good point! I guess this depends on the subtleties of your interpretation of the word "opposite". I just wanted to use a term other than "negate" and it made sense to me. :)

If you see the "opposite" of "left" to be "right", then "opposite" is probably not a good term to use for your personal understanding because as you said, this is not the same as negating.

If you see the "opposite" of "left" to be "not left" (which could be straight or really any other direction that is not left), then you're probably in the same frame of mind I was when I wrote my OG comment

@Amelia_D You can treat "all dogs are friendly" as "if dog --> friendly"! But, when you negate that whole relationship you want to turn it into "not all dogs are friendly" or "some dogs are not friendly".

To say "/friendly --> /dog" means "if it is not friendly, then it is not a dog" which is the same as saying "all dogs are friendly" . So you've just written "if dog --> friendly" in an equivalent way that expresses the same idea (the contrapositive). This chapter is about negating a whole Statement saying that "it is not the case that Statement is true"

@elysestraka Depends on how you're currently approaching questions I think. Writing a lot down on scratch paper? Using the highlighting tool a lot? Diagramming? Going back and reading the stimulus multiple times to get a good understanding? Maybe even reading the stimulus too slow on the first pass?

If any of these yell out to you as what may be causing some extra time on each question, they are good places to start seeing where you can mentally start improving on time. Whether that is doing more "mental math" instead of highlighting and writing things down, or improving your reading skills to understand your stimulus on the first pass. Or even the "shallow dip" method talked about in the parallel flaw section to eliminate answers faster off the bat.

@dancingqueen138 "which one (proposition) is best illustrated" tells us that we are looking for a conclusion in the answer choices that is supported (illustrated) by the stimulus. "which one is best" tells us that we aren't looking for an air-tight valid conclusion, but rather which one is the best fit. Both of these point combined end up pointing us in the most strongly supported direction.

^(I was stumped by this one too but this is how I'm thinking about it on review)

@DeliaCanDoIt! I don't think there is an issue between saying "few" = "not many". In my mind, I do however think there is an issue with your logic because "remaining" is not the opposite of "migrating".

"few birds remain during winter" could mean a bunch of things that aren't migration. what if a ton of birds died from disease? a few would remain after that and most birds wouldn't have migrated. You can't conclude most birds left just because few remain without making an assumption that ruins your validity.

Also, keep in mind that "most birds are migratory" could mean 51% of the total birds are migratory. Then your next premise says "most migratory birds have left" so 51% of our 51% (which comes out to about 25%). That means only 25% of total birds migrate -- so no! we couldn't validly assume few birds (which is both inclusive of migratory and not) migrate.

@Nena_lena AC (B) "relies on an assumption that is tantamount to assuming that the conclusion is true". If we assume the assumption is true, in your case that removing lead paint leads to decrease in lead poisoning, it still doesn't go as far as to "being tantamount to assuming" that eradicating homes of lead would eradicate lead poisoining (conclusion) is true. One reason being exactly the reason answer C is correct, what if lead is in buildings that aren't homes (like a schoolbuilding)? Even making our initial remove lead -c-> decrease in lead poisoining assumption can be true and the conclusion still not be assumed/true.

@EmmaDjukic I think you can! We just haven't seen an example here.

What we did see an example of is that you just have to be very careful because a lot of trap answers will say something like "if it is not raining, then the hotel is not required to give an umbrella to guests" which confuses sufficiency and necessity. (what if the hotel owner really, really cares about guest sun protection and made the umbrella a requirement on sunny days??)

@OmarAlmi short-handing the diagram or doing it mentally can help! I got it under the time by about half a minute by realizing the right answer could reach the justification (J) conclusion if it fulfilled "computer used in business" (CiB) & "reasonable grounds for evidence in a legal proceeding against computer owner" (RG in LP). Allowed me to cross off some answers pretty fast that left one or more out.