E is saying if some commitments meet this criteria, then all are morally neutral. Conclusion is in nec which we need, and it is what the arg is getting at, so is a principle that further supports it.

Low Res:

1. old hyp/new study

2. unique challenge

3. implication

Official Complaint Q for other people that had issues:

I was able to take my test (albeit with delays). A proctor was not available at the start of my second section after my first break (accommodation), so I started and was then interrupted to do the room & person scan. I lost about 3 minutes on the section in order to redo the scans.

https://www.lsac.org/lsat/lsat-test-day-complaints-and-feedback

I am weighing whether or not to file a complaint but have a ton of questions for the options LSAC lets you chose:

Keep your LSAT score; can we see the score before deciding?

Cancel your LSAT score and register for an LSAT administration during one of the next three LSAT administration periods;

-can we see the score first?

-will we be able to opt for the September LSAT even though registration is closed?

Last, LSAC says they may not have complaints resolved by the score release date (8/30). So is there a world where we launch a complaint & don't hear back until after the October LSAT registration deadline on 8/31 and then we are out of luck until Nov?

Any help appreciated & sorry to everyone else impacted!

I was deciding between whether or not this Q Stem was NA or SA.

If it was SA: A seemed like the clear answer, but if NA, then C bc it blocks the idea that maybe physics has better standards within peer review than biology.

On BR I sided with SA & picked A and luckily an SA correct AC also strengthens, but this was a unique Q Stem that really confused me!

I got down to D & A and also struggled to identify why AC A was right.

The stim says that outsiders may provide advice, but imposition is not OK. with that in mind, AC D goes too far by saying outsiders must be prevented all together. They can be a part of the process, but they can only give advice & not impose. A makes that stipulation whereas D just says they should be prevented full stop.

Picked E on first pass & BR & then almost went with D when WA journaling...so adding my thinking here as well.

B: Undermines a conclusion drawn from statistical data by offering an alternative explanation - the alternative would be here that they sometimes quantify other issues in financial terms, but they are other issues. Explains why data may not be on point.

D : Undermines a conclusion drawn from statistical data by criticizing the survey for which he data was gathered. - they don't criticize the survey itself, they criticize the conclusion R jumps to with the survey

E: Undermines a conclusion by showing that couples cannot accurately describe their own problems.

It doesn't show that couples can't do this it - it is focused on the survey & the conclusion drawn from the survey, not the couples themselves. If it was a better survey it could have accounted for this, its not couples fault & our author definitely doesn't come for the survey because of this, they come at R for the conclusion he draws using the survey.

^This was super helpful to me! I picked AC E on both first pass & BR, and felt pretty confident because the stim started with the qualifier of "like a number of other articles"...which made me think E held water when it said "Many". My reasoning for E was that because the stim had that qualifier, many was appropriate, otherwise it went too far.

Above comment is super helpful in pointing out that we don't know if those many other articles draw that conclusion. All we know is that they use the same study as R, but he is the one that draws the conclusion, but the evidence doesn't add up. Therefore, (C) is right, his conclusion is not adequately justified bc it relies on that study.

Adding my thinking here since I choose AC A on first pass & BR. I think the Q stem was tricky, at first i approach as MSS before realizing it wasn't.

Stim:

-IMR is accepted health indicator

-overall rate is decreasing in US

-decline doesn't show that on average babies are healthier

Anticipated: Need an AC that shows why the rate is declining but babies are on average healthier. At first I thought maybe this would be that one locality is tanking the rate for the country, but could also be something else, like new med practice or tech, that explains it.

A: This is a too broad way of saying some localities may be outliers. Didn't fully eliminate, but this is not a stand alone AC.

B: Irrelevant, doesn't help explain

C: Yes - this shows that babies are healthier on average, but because we are saving more babies (who have ore health complications) that rate looks like it's going down. We are expanding the sample size of babies to include the most unhealthy.

D : irelevant

E: irelevant

Adding my reasoning in as well! I mainly got stuck between AC C & D.

Pre-phrase/key assumption made is about prevention. Just bc both supervision programs have the same % of people arrested again doesn't indicate how effective the supervision is at prevention. We don't know how many people from each groups attempted crimes (FWIW it seems like good counterargument that almost 100% of crimes attempted in the intense supervision group would be arrested, as opposed to less in the routine group bc of the nature of the supervision).

A: irrelevant

B: irrelevant

C: Yes - this shows that the % can be trusted and used to draw the conclusion that the author draws, it is a blocking NA bc blocks it from the point above about the difference in supervision. If this AC was negated, it would show that you cannot use the % to draw this conclusion bc it would show there are MORE crimes in the routine group meaning it did not do the same at PREVENTION as the intense supervision group did.

D) This AC trapped me for a while bc if it was flips the types of supervision, I think it would be an NA. The way I was ultimately able to eliminate this was by negating, it would actually strengthen the arg. as opposed to wrecking it.

E) this would not impact the argument bc the support comes from a percentage and not a raw number. the % would stay the same regardless of the raw numbers.

#help I came back this one bc i really struggled to identify the MC and I still honestly don't see how that is the MC, and its tripping me up bc of the conditional statement.

Wouldn't the MC be the conditional statement as a whole (something like if you dont want dem institutions to crumble, you should vote)? Why do we get to only take part of it and use that for the correct answer?

With regard to @andrewlee13541563 ask & JY's answer that 4 section PTs will be available on the next feature release - to confirm does that mean this will be available when the drill feature is officially rolled out? or is that a separate, future release? thank you!

I got tripped up on B because of the word defend & the relationship to addition. I doesn't feel like a stand alone AC bc requires assumption that successful defense would lead to addition in population. What if successful defense just means getting bigger? more leaves? etc... BUT with POE it still ends up being best answer/only one that strengthens

Thank you both! Restarted my computer & the issue was resolved ¯_(ツ)_/¯

If anyone else got this wrong bc they forgot what group "if & only if" was

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/advanced-bi-conditionals/

Anticipated AC: MP / SC - has support but also provides support to MC

ACs

A: No, it has support.

B: No, it has support.

C: Yes, has support and provides support to C.

D: No. has support but it DOES provide support to C, so this is descriptively inaccurate.

E: No, not descriptively accurate of 2 distinct conclusions.

I got super lost on this my first time seeing, but on BR was able to solve this solely by thinking about the specific groups in stim & remembering we can't make inferences about things not discussed. Feels like a good back to basics MBT Q.

A- "important function of poetry" - wrong: we can't make any inferences about poetry, our stim only discusses epic poems

B- yes- restates stim & MBT

C- no, again this is talking about poetry in general we are only talking about epic poetry

D- "for many groups of people" - we can't make any inferences about many groups of ppl- we only know info about a small subset that hear epic poetry

E-Only epic poetry does X -- we have no idea, there could be tons of other poetry that also do X, our stim doesn't discuss it so we can't make any inferences about it

For folks shifting through this for the first time like me, found this info below by searching through the links provided:

**5. How to deal with Comparative Reading passages**

LSAC started including these in the Reading Comprehension section in June 2007, so instead of having 4 long passages, you'll only have 3. The 4th is replaced by 2 shorter ones on a related topic.

However, most of them will compare the short passages. Although the passages won't explicitly refer to each other, they'll be on similar topics. The authors will probably agree on some issues and disagree on others. Sometimes, one passage will go into detail on a particular topic and the other will discuss it in more general terms.

How to approach:

Start with the questions that focus on only one of the two passages - it's easier to locate the relevant information.

When you start doing questions that focus on the 2nd passage, analyze it with an eye towards how this passage is different from the first. Look for variations in the topics, areas where the authors agree / disagree, and contrast their tones and styles.

Link: https://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/lsat-reading-comprehension-strategies.html

for folks looking for flashcards with 7 sage Q Stem labels: https://quizlet.com/140131849/logical-reasoning-question-stems-flash-cards/

astrology 101: the time & place you were born impact your birth chart

For anyone else that had deja vu when doing this Q - it is now one of the example video lessons for parallel flaw & JY explains why AC A is correct in a much clearer way

https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/experimental-psychology-pf-question/

I understand the flaw structure here with correlation assumption & cause, but can anyone help explain how the conclusion of the stim & D that JY didn't map out are valid?

For example, in the stim JY ends his map with:

V -cause-> 50/HD

& the conclusion seems to translate to: 50/HD --> V which reads as invalid bc its stating B -> A with no contrapositive. Am I mapping this wrong?

#help