@JonathanH.Zhangxu I wonder if we missed the same one!

Would rules/principles be considered intermediate conclusions? Also, in this specific stim would the principle be an intermediate conclusion with the second half of the second sentence bring it suppport?

I guess my main question is- is there an intermediate conclusion at all in this stim?

For whatever reason, I read this stim and completely blanked. I ended up getting the answer choice right but not for any particular reason I could explain (at least during my timed take). I think for complicatedly worded stim's we should aim to figure out the conclusion and the vibes of what the stim author is going for- she's essentially pitting the blame on gov so gov = evil. Having that set up vibe in your head you can go through the answer choices and consider whether the government in question is being bad (consistent with argument) or if they're actually not to blame for the lack of rice available in world markets (so gov = not so evil after all)

@calliekoskovich and I really do think it's on purpose. These newer LSAT have forced to be more flexible in how I think of answer choices. For AC B "Not Several Stars" can be written in many ways and "This film features only one star" is just one of them! In the rush of a timed section or PT tho it's hard to grasp that sometimes...

LOVE J.Y.! To further expand on the explanation of AC E..

When I read this argument I automatically thought but just because we reclassified some laws doesn't automatically mean that the "innocuous everyday occurrences" are actual crimes...I had this thought right before the conclusion. I think being skeptical allowed me to zero in on the flaw. So.. if these IEO's are actually (reclassified as) crimes now (I just need to accept that they're crimes now considering it's a premise), and since the conclusion is that vagrancy laws are increasing crime (in general) then it must be that these IEO's are happening more often. PERIOD.

I read AC E and I knew the argument was definitely doing that but had a hard time (under timed conditions) comparing it to my original pre-phrase. Nothing was even remotely close so I picked E and moved on.

TLDR; The flaw in the argument is that just because something (that now falls under the umbrella of crime) is reclassified as a crime doesn't mean that there will be in increase (in general) of said crime. There's an equally valid chance that people stopped committing the IOE's once it was reclassified as a crime. We don't have much support for SUCH a strong conclusion.

I really struggled with this question. I ended the section with a -4 and this question is the first one I reviewed (since I had flagged it after I read through it a couple times). I had originally chosen C but then came back when I finished the section to read over this question again... I picked A and then ultimately settled for C and continued checking over flagged questions.

Things to consider next time:

• The inherent weakness of an answer choice with "Many" in it. Of course, there are some correct answer choices with Many in it but if the goal is to "most weaken" that's a point against AC A.

• AC A doesn't really tell us anything that would impact a larger, well-supplied library. MAYBE (if we are open to a couple assumptions) if at least one resident doesn't use the branch libraries because of the irregular hours MAYBE that one resident would go to a larger library... but we really can't assume much from AC A.

• The focus of AC A is a negative about the branch libraries. The stim is trying to get us to move from smaller branches to ONE LARGER, well-supplied library. If anything, the focus on a bad aspect of a smaller branch library is consistent/strengthening to the argument.

Correct AC C on the other hand:

• The conclusion is about meeting the needs of the Winchester residents. Supposedly, the larger library will do just that. There's an underlying assumption- that this idea of a "broader, more current selection" is the only relevant factor OR at least the one factor with the most relevance to the argument BUT THAT CAN'T BE TRUE. We are essentially equating the residents' needs (big overarching idea in conclusion) with that of a broader and more current selection AS IF that's the only thing to consider when we think of meeting their needs. Honestly any point made against a large library will instantly wreck the argument since the author of the argument went too extreme with their conclusion.

I think it also depends on the school. If there's one in particular you have in mind their admissions team is usually very receptive to personalized questions if you join a webinar or something

Damn- switched from the right answer to the wrong one during the exam. I couldn't explain why I wanted to pick C so I ended up picking E) bc it describes how the test case strategy works (subjectively picking people that best work for the case)...

Off first glance I thought the flaw was just because a specific set of people have more ethical principles than mosts doesn't mean their moral principles are actually good but I realize I was kind of side-stepping the point of the argument. By mentioning that certain sets of people TEND to do X or Y and than choosing one set of the people as preferable due to the effect of wanting "more ethical behavior in business schools" the argument actually assumes the correlations are causal

edit; When I was coming up with my prephrase I was too focused on the beginning of the stimulus and didn't fully grasp what the conclusion was saying. I instantly knew I liked answer choice C, revisited the stim and realized hey we don't care about "worthwhile" or "good" ethical behavior, the conclusion just wants to promote "more" ethical behavior in general (in terms of quantity). Being flexible with your prephrase is important and will not let you down!

@ZulymarPerez classic

friends- when do we know to keep a premise in a (if -> then) format and then negate (like we do for this question) on other questions? Is it because the principal is the entire if-then statement? TY

@RyanKelly yes! I was just writing out my thought process on how I got to D

Pre-phrase: BB Movies earn 2x or 3x the cost of production and marketing BUT WHAT IF since they big they hire BIG name actors and lose out more and LB's have actors who work for $0 BUT AC B works in a similar manner. BB cost a lot and let's say only 10 of them made a year but LB costs little and hundreds are made a year. Surely this solves the discrepancy

I knew I was looking for an answer choice that had "cause" in it but AC B really threw me for a loop- couldn't understand what it even meant

@Shelbyariel23 I thought the same thing. Ultimately though, I think it's wise to focus on just the last paragraph because the one before (second to last) is talking about other types of experiments that include correlative findings. This other (ingenious btw ;) ) experiment stands on its own, provides more support to the theory NOT the other piece of support (the correlative study findings).

is it ok that I understood B as saying that even medieval canon lawyers were influenced to protect their fellow canon lawyer colleagues? Either ways I see now that from the first paragraph we can gather that medieval guilds influence the actions of their members for good but when I was taking the section I got to answer choice B a different way.

#help

I didn't even consider A as the right answer because of how strong it (supposedly) FELT. The fact that some english lawyers practice in civil courts and also in church courts is stated but since the latter end of the answer choice wasn't stated I instantly marked it out for consideration. Something to keep in mind in the future is the fact that sometimes extra fluff is added to an answer choice but it doesn't take away from the correctness of the answer. The latter end of the answer choice is redundant it's saying something we already know. There was a mix of lawyers in both civil and church courts yet there obviously were some that were either in just the civil camp or in the church camp.

@crorosco02956 friends- I have come back to expand on my comment. When in doubt (and no other context clues have been given like in this Q) the subject of a sentence takes the sufficient clause and the predicate of a sentence take the necessary clause. SO in the last sentence we get "But an artwork cannot express an emotion that the artwork's creator is incapable of experiencing."

The subject of the sentence is the artwork creator. How is the creator being described? "The artwork creator is incapable of experiencing (emotion)" THAT MEANS THAT THEIR "artwork can't express emotion.

i.e

/CE -> /EE ( Deep emotion lies within the broad category of emotion) -> /G

That is all!

bro I didn't even understand what culling meant I just knew it meant elephant go bye bye

if it makes it easier to understand ya'll you can always just take out extra fluff of a sentence. The "other than oneself" part is kinda unnecessary. The kernel of the sentence is in doing (or not doing) something in the hopes or expectation of benefiting someone

why is it that sometimes "cannot" can be used to negate a necessary condition and sometimes it doesn't?

Now that i'm getting a better handle of harder questions it gets hard to supply assumptions so readily. Was stuck between A and D and ultimately knew that if I conceded the assumption that the play the critic is talking about is a "tragedy"- then yes, answer choice A would most definitely weaken.

Answer choice D on the other hand- requires many assumptions. What does it mean if this play is similar? Is that good? Is it bad?

@Allen_the_Alien I initially thought the same! I now think it's because I misinterpreted answer choice A. I think the answer choice is deceiving because it makes you want to think hey the diatom (algae) AMOUNT hasn't changed!! but really it's describing the diatom's features. It's essentially saying: Diatoms themselves haven't changed in composition and have the same features as they did during the last ice age. This undermines nothing.

Sufficient assumption question. We want support the flow of the argument in the right way. We want to tie the bigger idea of "purpose of art" in the premises to "debate on what constitutes art itself" in the conclusion.

The entire support system of the argument is about the purpose of art and how that causes experts to debate ideas- one of them being what constitutes art itself. THEN we have a final piece of support "the edifice has cause experts to debate what constitutes art itself,..." so we what is missing?

it's answer choice D!

if fulfill purpose of art -> qualifies as art and NOT Answer choice A because we need to get to the conclusion of what QUALIFIES AS ART

@crorosco02956 Hello me from 2025. How about the fact the stimulus mentions that action shows are preferred by "most television viewers" easily assumable that this means action is popularrrrr THEREFORE if they only consider popular programming like that of action shows, then their obligations are not satisfied.