depgomen315
I'm currently PT'ing in the low 170's. Got a 170 in April after PT'ing in the high 160s. Like many, I really want to try and push above 175. I work full time. Should I take June, August, or October? Part of me feels like a month is not enough to comfortably PT in the high 170's. How long did it take you to PT from low 170's to high 170's?
What helped me eliminate (B) at first is that it doesn't even describe a flaw, really.
If you say the absence of something is sufficient for an outcome, then you're saying that thing is necessary for the opposite outcome. (/A → /B then B → A).
Then I went back and validated that (B) was wrong because it's possible that there were times when the government did not fall and there were vicious rulers.
* Eliminate AC's that don't address "real" (the discrepancy)
* AC's A and E are given by the stimulus (using the biconditional)
* B is the only one that adds to the argument
I had no idea what economy of expression meant -- but it was the only answer choice (after eliminating the obvious ones like A and B) that mentioned anything remotely close to "preferring" one thing over the other (it actually says the word). That's the gap in the argument. Why do we prefer the side of oral tradition listed in the premises?
gosh i knew C was not right ... but to JY's point, I think you could argue he did reanalyze the correlation -- a correlation is just a relationship -- but he's saying the direct opposite of what's stated, that this relationship stems from multiple causes instead of one.
Thx JY for making us statistics majors feel validated in our LSAT endeavors
I had a different approach to JY. Not nearly as complex, but it worked.
The key to solving this question was identifying the argument conclusion correctly (that the advertisements had any effect at all on the number of people who smoke) and separating it from the factual conclusion (that the number of people smoking decreased).
(A) - Everyone could have kept smoking and (A) could be true. No effect.
(B) - Great, the advertisements got some people to reduce smoking. But how does that prove the advertisements got some people to quit smoking? And what about the discrepancy that this behavior didn't occur during the campaign? No effect.
(C) - I actually saw this answer to suggest that people had moved out of the area or died. If you're a chronic smoker who suddenly quits, does that mean you're no longer susceptible to respiratory conditions? No! No effect.
(D) - People could have not even known about the tax and still the number of people who smoke is down. Great.
(E) - We're saying that smokers are more sensitive to product taxes than non-smokers. Weakens.
The logical negation of dislike is "not dislike." If you like something, then you can't dislike it. Here's where you can get in trouble if you negate "dislike" as "like:" if you don't dislike something, that doesn't mean you like it. You could feel neutral about it. You could have literally 0 thoughts about it. It's just that you don't dislike it.
It's cleaner if you think about "like" as a subset of "not dislike," but if you need to brute force it:
Ski resort → Like LW → Dislike LW → Cattle rancher
You don't have to make that assumption. The stimulus tells gives you that the Professor will be teaching 2 French classes next semester. It's implied that French class = a language course given the context. Otherwise, they would say "of the two courses in the French department that Alban will teach next semester..."
Don't know if this thinking is right but it got me to (D) twice (first attempt and BR)...
Few Police dramas are popular = most Police dramas are not popular.
So we have New shows → Police dramas –most→ not popular
With (D) ...
Not popular → likely to get cancelled (all not popular police dramas got cancelled)
Then
So we have New shows → Police dramas –most→ not popular → likely to get cancelled