reminds me The Last Ship, hard to stay focused during timed PT

^This

^This, stealing thunder application.

My bad, I mean PT72 S3#11, not art...

Same crap as PT72 S2#16, which also talks about art!

reminds me the "talking pillow" from Breaking Bad

^^Appreciate, gonna start it today, never too late:)

can someone enlighten me with simple instruction regarding how to perform meditation?

i think so too, or we may say "to explore" doesn't mean she can't be indifferent to those important question (which doesn't make much sense to me)

So yes I think E make this argument work in an air tight way which should be an SA

JY I think your explanation still holds, bacteria instead of disease causing bacteria is definitely one shell game error, but even if E says "disease causing bacteria" it is still wrong.

Acceptable Method including Ster & Seal, but nowhere in the passage mentioned Acceptable Method including all possible Ster & Seal, there could have thousands of Ster & Seal method which eliminate all disease causing bacterial but not a part of Acceptable Method.

Therefore if a food contains no bacteria we can only conclude it involves Ster and Seal however we don't know if that specific Ster & Seal method adopted is part of the Acceptable Method, maybe yes maybe no, but definitely not Must Be True!

From the passage we can see TV is positively correlated with increase in book retail sales, therefore we know at least TV does not cause a decline.

Maybe there could have thousands of reasons that TV cause a decline, but based on the given passage this inference is unwarranted, and D is soft enough to be true based on given info.

"The multi-talented star died from kidney failure and exhaustion"

hydrogen sulfide is H2S, S is -2

LDBW: Large Difference Between Wages

HF: Hire Freely

WLSSC: Wage Level Static or Slow Changing

SF: Social Friction

SubPremise: SF→WLSSC

SubConclusion: LDBW→HF

------------------------------------

MainConclusion: [LDBW→SF]

Now work backwards from this unsupported main conclusion,

The main conclusion is negating the entire statement by saying "large difference between wages induces social friction is unfounded"

So now we need to bridge the gap between HF and WLSSC:

From sub conclusion we know we can replace LDBW with HF, and place into concluion, now we have:

[HF→SF]

which means "hire freely become source of social friction is unfounded"

and from sub premise we know we can replace SF with WLSSC, and place into the above derived relation:

[HF→WLSSC]

and that's what we are trying to bridge, "hire freely will lead wage level to become static or slow changing is unfounded"

The key here is to negate the entire statement, I tried to use A→/B type conditional it doesn't work because last sentence said social friction from wage levels that are static or slow changing, and also this statement does not explicitly state that LDBW will produce "no friction," instead it's a negation between the entire relationship.

insufficient to justify the argument concludes is false

argument concludes is false refers to "NOT a mistake to think not inclined means not deserve praise"

so B can be read as:

It makes an observation that, according to the argument, is insufficient to justify that not inclined means not deserve praise is NOT a mistake.

or

It makes an observation that, according to the argument, is insufficient to accept the claim that not inclined means not deserve praise.

If we switch "mainstream biological theory" with "stupid sneaky lsat theory", flaw is quite evident since mentally read will think stupid sneaky lsat theory sounds like stupid theory and will not buy it's shit however "mainstream biological theory" sounds so legit and I immediately fall into the trap take it as a universal fact.

However in other questions how do we consider the premise given is a universal accepted truth rather than a trap alluring us to presuppose its validity? can somebody help me with this?

Could you please specify "get tunnel vision"? I mean what kind of mental state I should adjust myself to "get tunnel vision"?

For example SA I'm looking at building a bridge...

Can anyone elaborate D? "some of the effects" could mean among all those evidences several of them (let's take judgement and comprehension for example) were affected before 6100m while speech function were worsen after 6100m.

Therefore brain portions get affected due to different altitude because different altitude corresponds to affect different part of brain therefore the original argument that those areas are not distinct is getting weakened.

However while typing this out I somehow saw unwarranted assumption I made in D which is try to add an positive correlation between altitude and brain functioning mechanism regarding different brain portions, which is definitely not supported anywhere in the argument and I guess that's why D was bugging me during blind review.

1st sentence is basically a generalization of the second sentence therefore we should consider it as a contextual sentence.

consider this as cause&effect

building racetrack is the cause, children not develop good character is the effect.

B weaken the original causal argument by showing that same cause not necessarily produce the same effect.

Remember if we want to weaken causal argument we have couple ways?

1. Cause without effect

2. Effect without cause

3. Reversed cause and effect

4. Alternative explanation

5. Attack statistical validity

i pick E as well, but I think they do want to test us to see if we can distinguish the difference between "Directly and Indirectly" VERSES "Moderate and Active" and I believe that's what makes E wrong: they moderately involved in civil rights activities, but their involvement is definitely "directly"

"Many" in lawgic means "Some", so two(2) ministers run for office still means "many" of them run for office.

I went the same route as you

Let's try to understand A in this way: scientists are making effort greater than ever before, but those effort still gets wasted due to [Premise], see A is able to blend into the original argument while make argument's conclusion still able to stand up.

Remember JY's weaken class? weaken means we have to weaken the support between premise and conclusion, A does not hurt that support, A to the most is just a contextual argument.

It's more like a MBT/Inference choice.

If we negate necessary assumption it will destroy the argument, in this case, if we negate E, say: "no moon orbit alpha," does that necessarily destroy the argument?

Maybe yes maybe not, stimulus is not specified, we can only make some reasonable assumption that the stimulus says "moons in solar system S4" could infer that there are at least 1 moon in solar system S4 therefore in this case we negate E it indeed destroy the argument.

So my answer is yes E is very likely a necessary assumption but there are some grey area, and LSAC will never make a correct answer choice ambiguous.

Just like sufficient and necessary!

causation is sufficient condition that's sufficient to imply chronology relationship.

However chronology is only a necessary condition, chronology's existence alone gives us no info about whether sufficient condition is valid or not, we only know if chronology is wrecked then causation relation is wrecked!