I'm moving back to London this summer. Taking the LSAT in a week, but I kinda like this test (in a weird, slightly masochistic way) so even if I get my goal score I doubt that'll be the end of the LSAT for me. Shoot me an invite on the study buddy programme!

Leaving this here as a bit of a PSA. This is an improper negation of C and actually leads you to attack a premise. The proper negation is ‘no fish raised in traditional hatcheries die because they are too timid in their search for food.’ That sentence isn’t disputing the fact that trad hatchery fish are timid (that we already know from the premises). What it is saying is that their timidity in their search for food is not a cause behind any trad hatchery fish death, and that weakens our argument because the argument concludes that because experimental hatchery fish are both more bold in search for food and in exploring new areas, they are more likely to survive.

E is wrong because of the word 'circumstances'. As I understand it, 'circumstances' refers to the facts of the situation: that there is no test to distinguish between the two diseases, that there is no treatment for disease X but there is one for disease Y, etc.

It doesn't refer to an assumption about what disease the patient might have, so saying that circumstances must change to fit the strategy (which is to assume Y) is wrong as it's not what the author is concluding.

Yes, it's because Theo says popular music 'performs other artistic functions.' You can reasonably assume then that Theo believes popular music is an art form.

I think JY brushes past B too quickly. It's wrong, but it's not the ridiculous answer choice he thinks it is. B is actually descriptively accurate. The author does argue that the difference between real and false needs is blurred because consumers may actually derive fulfilment from buying advertised products, which Marcuse implies can only be realised by fulfilling a real need.

JY bizarrely takes issue with the last portion of the answer, that this takes place in "profit motivated, consumer-oriented societies". What is that describing? EXACTLY the environment described in the passage, the 'mass market.'

B is wrong because it doesn't actually capture the main point. The correct answer choice should capture the author's conclusion that Marcuse is wrong because the mechanism behind his system of oppression (that people are unwitting zombies to advertising) is untrue, and B simply doesn't do that.

In a way, yes. The author is concluding that inhalers are the cause of the deaths, and B eliminates an alternate explanation: that the increased death rate is simply a result of statistical inaccuracy.

Pm'd.

It's definitely a gap that the LSAT expects you to notice, and assuming otherwise is falling for the trap they've laid for you.

You can also look at this conditionally. You're assuming 'aware of threat threat' --> 'concern'. I've given you two reasonable, real-world examples of 'aware of threat' and 'concern', and there are many more to be made. That conditional statement isn't valid and you therefore can't say that if you're aware of a threat then you must automatically be concerned about it.

Correct, both are needed for the conclusion to be supported, but the premises do not support each other. The first sentence is something I'd define as a principle, or if that is too strong, a statement the author holds to be true.

Not necessarily. You can be aware of a threat without being concerned about it. I'm aware, and I consciously register, the threat the street poses to me on a daily basis. Tomorrow I could be hit by a bus, but am I concerned about it? No, not really. I cross the street safely everyday, so why should tomorrow be any different?

That's just an example, but the point stands. You can understand a threat to yourself without being concerned about it.

I think you're conflating the concepts of awareness and concern in this stimulus. The second sentence only mentions that the public is more aware of the severity of the threat of water contamination when compared to the threat of Ozone air pollution.

Being aware about a threat is not the same as being concerned about a threat. I can be aware of the severity of the threat that global warming poses for our species, but I can also be unconcerned about that threat (maybe I think I'll be long dead before that threat becomes a material danger).

We don't need to explain why the public is more aware of the severe threat water contamination poses when compared to air pollution. That's just stated by the author for us.

You're right, by itself it doesn't support the conclusion. However, that doesn't mean it's can't be a premise that supports the conclusion.

Example was probably the wrong word for me to use. It's the situation at hand.

It just sounds nice as a premise though. Why did the public respond strongly to the water contamination and not the pollution even though both problems are arguably just as serious? Because the public generally cares about obvious issues

You can look at it like that, but you're missing what the question is asking you. What role does the first sentence play in the argument? It supports the conclusion that there won't be any grassroots effort for more stringent controls on air pollution. The author is not trying to explain why there is more "awareness" for contaminated water than there is for air pollution. That's just stated in the stimulus as a premise.

Hi Ashley,

C uses some sleight of hand wording to make itself seem attractive. The first sentence is a principle which the author uses to make his conclusion given the example (people being presumably more aware of water pollution when compared to 'ozone'). The principle is not used to explain why the public is aware of the severity of the problem (that fact is a given), it is only used to support the conclusion that since people are more aware of the contaminated water than the threat of 'ozone', there probably won't be any efforts to rein the air pollutant in.

B is perfect. The principle is a premise that supports the conclusion.

Let me know if this answered your question!

Everyone is focussing on (B) being a valid argument, but what really tipped the scales towards E for me was that the timing involved matched the stimulus better. The stim mentions that the purported result of the minor tremors, the major earthquake, will occur in the 'near future' and (E) mentions the outbreak is 'imminent.' They're near synonyms. Conversely, in (B) the river will overflow 'this coming spring' with the reference point being the winter. Conceivably, that could be several months away.

I think you're getting a bit too deep into the argument itself. The q-stem isn't asking you for what needs to be done to fix the issue presented, it's asking you to select the answer that is most supported by the statements made.

We know physical education is supposed to make teach people to lead active lifestyles as they grow older and that it's not doing that for all students at school because of a focus on competitive sports which leads a majority of less competitive students to not become active. The ONLY statement that receives any support is A.

Regardless of whether it is or is not the case in most schools, that non-competitive should be included in PE is supported by the statements made in the stimulus.

I eliminated (C) a bit differently than JY did. To me, it was just factually wrong. From BCO → H you can conclude that if an organisation is hierarchical, there is at least a chance that it is bureaucratically controlled (if that can be considered an aspect of how an organisation operates) as BCO is a subset of H.

Great article. Really gets across what is expected of us.