Did you change your study approach once you got to the mid 160s?

#help

For Q17, "The author's attitude toward oscillation can most accurately be characterized as being?", I was picking between A and B.

I didn't pick A (the correct answer) because of the 1st phrase "satisfied that it occurs". I thought this ignored the possibility implied at the end of the passage that the oscillation might be proven wrong.

I picked B (wrong answer) because of the tone of the last section of the passage, where it seemed like the author is hopeful that proving this would be one stepping block towards understanding dark matter.

In another LSAT explanation blog, they explained that B is wrong because we don't know if other dark matter types are also theorized to oscillate, so the passage is only limited to discussing oscillation in relation to neutrinos.

I see the point, but I find this to be a rather narrow reading. I'm not sure how to not replicate my error in future readings?

RIP Kobe

I also got super confused with this one, and was the 1st one I got incorrect in the NA problem sets

I actually picked C and then changed my answer with 2 seconds left in timed drill to B, and picked it again on BR.

I'm not entirely sure I follow your explanation above, but the question is a "Necessary Assumption". The direction of your reasoning above might be flipped, if I understand your post correctly?

The way I think about NA is: If conclusion is true, does the NA have to be true?

If it's true that philosophical thought IS unique to humans, is it the case /does the argument assume that "philosophical thought can only be expressed in human language" (AC C). Yes.

The reason I switched B last minute is bc I was thinking about the distinction between "thinking" and "philosophical thought". If apes are capable of thinking (negation test for AC B), then that might imply that the could be capable of having philosophical thoughts and so, perhaps philosophical thought might not be unique to humans". But, me making the link between regular thought and philosophical thought is doing too much to the AC, when simply negating it is not actually enough to attack the conclusion.

(Doesn't help that I'm in grad school and reading about human & non-human relations haha)

Hi! I don't think that C attacks the conclusion, so I actually disagree with the reasoning above.

I also got confused with the ACs though, and I was picking between C and E. I realized that the tricky thing about the stimulus is being able to follow the specific line of argumentation.

Conclusion is: "There was enough light for Klein to make a reliable identification". Translation: The argument/conclusion is really a determination about the light (whether it's dark/light/"considerable"/"enough"). Think about it as conditions of crime, not so much about Klein's capacity.

What if there being "considerable moonlight" doesn't mean that there is "enough light" for proper identification? i.e. What if something is in the way?

C is incorrect. The hint here for me was the phrase "EVEN IN good light". This AC is saying, "ok, let's say that there was really enough light, Klein still might not have been able to identify the person because he was too upset". But that's sort of an after the fact kind of thing, after it might be established whether or not there was enough light to begin with.

I would try to re-read the stimulus and see how there's a throughline here about the light. Filter out the stuff about reliability of the witness, which is a different line of questioning.

Hope that helps!

Not sure if this response is too late..

I also got tripped up with the question stem, but for a slightly different reason. I picked B, which was the correct answer, but I was not comfortably with my process. I felt that I was crossing out the other answer choices because they were "Weakening" answer choices, not because they were descriptively inaccurate and describing the flaw of the stimulus, which is my method for FLAW questions.

That said, I don't think that B "supports" the conclusion. The conclusion is a prescriptive one: "DON"T inquire about their hobbies". The other 4 answer choices lead you to say, "ok maybe there's a reason to inquire about the applicant's hobbies". In other words, the four answer choices create space between the premise and the conclusion, so you can say that the stimulus overlooks these potential reasons FOR inquiring about hobbies.

I don't think that the stimulus parallels your donut example, because we are not being asked to introduce new premises in the question.

My sense is that A is attempting to back up their argument by evidence (the study with numbers, and the evidence about East Germany). So I think this would be equivalent to "Asserting that its position is supported by data". Bc if it isn't, then would we just be looking for a sentence in the passage where the author says "hey guys I'm using data!"

Not sure if that's right, but that's just my take!

#help

Isn't AC D also a sufficient assumption? If not, why not?

This is a point of disagreement question.

Council Person X:

Premise: The Council has the obligation to help ensure low electricity rates

Conclusion: If we all agree that we have to approve construction of a new plant, we should build plant E because its the design that would allow for lowest rates.

Council Person Y:

Premise: The Council has other roles (other than helping ensure low electricity rates) -- one of which is to not lower quality of life.

Premise: Plant E's design would damage the air quality. This would offset the benefits of low electricty rates

Implied argument (or at least a kind of direction where Y might be going?): We should not go with Plant E.

Answer Choices:

A: ? ?

Neither is actually explicit about whether they want to build a new station.

B: N Y

First person does not mention quality of life, so we don't know if they would agree/disagree with this.

C: ? Y

First person is not given a chance to respond to the point about air quality

D: Y N

Yes. this is the disagreement. One person says go with the plant because it'll be the cheapest for electricity, one person does not like the design bc of air quality effects.

E: Y ?

2nd person does not say anything about this, if anything, they might concede this point.

This is an argument part question.

Conclusion: You can relax some regulations to increase availability of meds, but don't lift all regulations.

Premise: /maintain --> extinct

(If you don't maintain strict environmental regulations, then endangered species will become extinct.)

Premise: Why is this relevant? New medicines come from plants and animals.

Sub conclusion: Lifting of all regulations will be too much (for endangered plants and animals), so even if the goal is to increase access, what you're doing is using up resources and it'll actually be counterproductive bc you'll have less resources for new medicines.

What I am looking for: Premise 2

Answer Choices:

A: Not really, it's not a reason, but it's a set-up for a reason. Author is not also making an point about restricting/not restricting research.

B: No. It's not part of a contradicting argument that this one then undermines, but instead, the argument itself mobilizes this point.

C: Tricky but no. The disaster is not going to result from continued OVER-regulation, but instead, an effect from DEregulation.

D: Yes. This is the explanation for why endangering plants/animals matters.

E: This is a bit too specific? This is not the role of the point about plants and animals. Also, what is "narrowly focused efforts"? This is a potential implication from the argument, but the argument doesn't actually go there, and only says, don't deregulate completely. The narrowness or breadth of the "relaxation of regulations" is unclear from the stimulus.

I'm a little confused why JY didn't use conditional logic for this?

Here's my analysis:

This is a flaw question.

Premise: Pure Free Market Economy (PFME) --> Maximum Total Utility (MTU)

Premise: There are other types of economies that can also achieve MTU. (i.e. there could be other sufficient conditions)

Argument: High Controlled Economy (HCE)--> /PME; /PME = not acting in a way most likely to bring about MTU

(Rephrased: if something is a highly controlled economy, then it is not trying to bring about a pure free market economy. And because it is not trying to bring about a pure free market economy, it's not acting in the way most likely to bring about MTU.)

The hardest thing for me to parse was the 1st sentence. I realize that it is saying that something like 'the only way that Maximum total utility is assured, is a pure free market economy, OR, 'having a pure free market economy is sufficient to guarantee the maximization of total utility". i.e. (PFME is the sufficient condition) The 2nd sentence -- there are other types of economies that can achieve MTU -- seemed to just say that OTHER things can be a sufficient condition for MTU. We know this just from conditional logic lessons. If X implies Y, this does not preclude that other things could also lead to Y. X implies Y does not mean that X is the only thing that leads to Y")

Thus, what I am looking for: Something that is a sufficient condition (X) for something (Y) is not the same as saying that X is THE thing that is THE MOST LIKELY condition to bring about Y. This is answer choice D.

Answer Choices:

A: /PFME --> HCE

Wrong directionality

B: level of importance of distribution of utility is not the issue

C: This replicates the flaw. How do we know that PFME is the most likely way to achieve that end? We do know that PFME is not the only way.

D: Yes, see reasoning above

E: This cost benefit analysis, then, is irrelevant to the argument.

This is a MSS question.

There isn't actually a clear argument in this passage, and it's sort of on the descriptive side. The author presents views, but is not clear on where he/she leans.

Premise: Cezanne inspired next generation of artists (these are 20th century modernist creators of abstract art)

Premise: Most experts agree that Cezanne is an early modernist

Premise: There are some who don't agree with this opinion.

Premise: One example is a guy, Cachin, who thinks interpretations of Cezanne have a biased point of view towards modernism.

Answer Choices:

A: There's nothing in the stimulus about controversy

B: This is a declarative statement that Cezane WAS a creator of abstract art. But, the stimulus doesn't imply this.

C: Yes. This is the first sentence.

D: This is a declarative statement that implies agreement with Cachin. But, the stimulus doesn't actually go there, it only present's Cachin's opinion.

E: This is a declarative statement that implies agreement with Cachin-- that interpreting Cezane as a modernist is a common tendency, AND that this is a misinterpretation. But, the stimulus doesn't actually go there, it only present's Cachin's opinion.

#help

I get why C is right, but I'm still not sure why A is incorrect. I was picking between the two and ended up picking A initially.

Here's my argument analysis:

Ruth: Politician --> Varied Experiences

If you're a politician, then you are required to have a variety of experiences:

Stephanie: Varied Experiences SOME /worthy

Having varied experiences is not sufficient to be declared worthy of public trust.

Answer choice A: is "The response simply asserts a point of view opposite to Ruth's without giving reasons for it."

JY says that Stephanie is not making an argument, but I think she IS making a statement no matter how off tangent it is (in logic terms, she's negating a conditional relationship), So the phrase in the AC "simply asserts a point of view" checks out for me. She also doesn't really support her own argument. Stephanie's sentence 2 is just a rephrasing of her sentence 1. So the phrase "without giving reasons for it" checks out for me.

Is the thing that is wrong the word "opposite"? Because Stephanie's point doesn't address Ruth's argument (since she puts words in Ruth's mouth), it's not actually 'opposite" to Ruth's?

#help

Does anyone else have trouble with diagramming when the words are slightly different? I did a double take on whether the phrase "derive pleasure from the satisfaction of their curiosity" is the same idea as "experience such pleasure", and so when I first did this question, I got tripped up if I could or should actually link the two.

(In reviewing this, I intuitively linked it up, but in the midst of being stressed out while doing the test, I seem to just forget my intuitive understanding of things!)

@davidbusis895 Also interested!

That said, could you clarify who the the target audience is for the program? I've finished the core curriculum and I'm now doing drills and PTs. Thanks!

Hi! Any updates on analytics for problem sets?

haha, great. thanks for the gut check!

I understand why E is the correct answer, and I picked E myself. However, when I read answer choices A and B, I didn't cross them out so easily because they seem to fit into argumentative flaw types. A is similar to an ad hominem argument and B had the word "most", which still kept open the possibility that the financial magazine is not part of this group of "most magazines". Therefore, I didn't think that these answer choices actually "strengthened" the stimulus. Any thoughts?

#help

Same here! :( The drilling prep tests disappeared for me too!

I agree. I thought the main point of the passage would be a summary of the last sentence: "changing copyright law to benefit owners of intellectual property is thus ill-advised because it would impede the development of the Web as a public forum dedicated to the free exchange of ideas". Without looking at the answer choices, I would have answered something along the lines of E.

That said, I see why "far" and "small number" are too specific. Is there any other reason for why E is not the correct answer choice? I'm still not fully understanding why A would be the main point, not the sub conclusion.