Best advice: these heuristics do not work, and when they did, it was probably coincidence. Eliminate answer choices for their substance, not their placement.

10 years after and this question is still flooring students. I think H parallels W's argument and it comes clearer by making their language more similar. Whitaker is committing a mistaken temporal dependency (interestingly very similar to the necessary sufficiency confusion but in the temporal dimension). Here, Whitaker assumes that the occurrence of the second year is a necessary prerequisite for describe a preceding event. H parallels that argument. Here the assumed necessary prerequisite is having a million dollars (which as you pointed out is being equivocated to rich, which is think is reasonable). And thus the failure of this condition leads to the conclusion that there can be no such thing as dying before becoming rich; which in H's argument is represented as "cannot help but become rich"

It does not really matter whether you interpret it as an exclusively "or" or not. The negation of one of them implies the other must be true.

Interesting question. D is ultimately wrong because it ignores the three part correlation that is posited in the stimulus. Even if we correct D for its minor errors (misplaced set under consideration, comparative conclusion which is consistent with a balanced disposition), it is still consistent with the correlation, especially since its possible that those being referred to in the answer choice might not even fall into the set of those with permanently high blood pressure and heart disease, therefore ignoring a crucial part of the correlation that supports the argument's conclusion.

This question really highlights the beauty of the LSAT. WA(B) really tries to take advantage of our presuppositions that new technology is generally more flexible and easier to use than old one. It also tries to make us conflate fact and belief, in that advertisements are not accurate descriptions of reality, something we are generally aware of, but take for granted in Logical reasoning where we rarely question the truth of premises but hone in on their relevance to the conclusion.

I wanted to add that your explanation is great, but your ideal NA would still be a wrong answer. The argument does not need sympathy to be a necessary condition for impact. The negation of your ideal NA will make this more apparent. Some Impact is achieved without sympathy for the problem. Our argument still stands as the conclusion is that it is "unlikely," not that it is impossible.

Even if we grant that error to the question, D is still a worse answer than A. What we need to know is how much of the pie (of serious ecological problems), belongs to the subset of serious ecological problems that are a result of government mismanagement. D doesn't describe the set accurately (major is not equal to serious). Even if we ignored that, and fallaciously assumed that both meant the same thing, all the knowledge we'd have would be a descriptive statement about a different pie that is irrelevant to our conclusion. We really do not need any information on the percentage of "environmental problems that are not the result of government mismanagement" that are serious ecological problems. We need the inverse of that: the percentage of serious ecological problems that are ""environmental problems that are the result of government mismanagement." Because with the former set description, it is possible that most serious ecological problems are in fact a result of government mismanagement thus invalidating our conclusion.

n

I'll take a shot at it. B is not analogous because it commits a different kind of flaw. It falsely equivocates owning a book to reading it. If it had said most people read more books than watch TV, then it would have been a better match. Even then, C would still be better since it implicitly compares one collection of one item to another, whereas B would be making a general comparison.

I still think your interpretations are unwarranted because you are assuming that the conclusion of the stimulus is true in the first place. It has not yet been established that the laptop was the cause of the interference.

q.11

Contrary to what J.Y says, Taruskin does indicate that the artist themselves are part of the elite and support for that can be drawn from the excerpt: "high art...is produced by and for social and political elites." D is wrong because that characteristic is not extended to the middle class.

I had a similar problem, but I think C is not very helpful at all. When you parse C, all it is saying is that If you were a show produced last year and not canceled, you are not a police drama. This conditional does not preclude the possibility that no police dramas or very few police dramas were produced last year, which is not as strong as D.

The logical opposite of less likely is not only "more likely"; it is "equally or more likely." So our argument does not need D to be true.

The question stem here only requires you to explain the decrease in international trade engagement. Usually, questions that require you to explain both sides would have question stems that go something like "...explain the discrepancy."

I had the same concern as well, and I hope the insight i gained during review might be helpful. We have to think about the conclusion of our stimulus, and it postulates that the result of an increase in the economy's strength is that finding a daycare will be "much more difficult." Therefore, our author needs a significant difference for that conclusion to hold, because a minute difference between workers leaving and workers entering (which almost every industry experiences everyday) makes the conclusion much less plausible.

Yeah, outside knowledge does help because I don't see anyone making that distinction in a minute without understanding a bit of how statistics work.My Economics major came in handy.

She believes Fiction writing is a valuable instrument because the passage specifically says that she argues that engaging in human work is necessary for social evolution and that human work should utilize that person's talents

Leaving this for someone as well as myself who had a problem distinguishing D from E. Your interpretation of D is a little bit wrong. D states that the culminatory amount of vacation has a greater effect on psychological exhaustion than the number of vacations. You don't even need to assume this is correct, it is common sense. If someone had 200 days of vacation a year and someone had 100, the former most likely would be better off no matter how many vacations it is split into. But ask yourself, for this to be a flaw, is it a consideration relevant to our authors argument? Does our author really need to consider this distinction for her argument to stand? The answer is no. Back to your interpretation of D, I'm sorry to say it but it's an unreasonable interpretation. Take for example, our friend above with 100 days of vacation. Now given that D is a description of our common sense real world, does that mean that no matter how much she splits her 100 days of work, that the amount of pyschological stress will be exactly the same? D is not saying that no matter what the amount of pyschological reduction of stress will be the same, but rather in a consideration of vacation time's effect on the reduction of pyschological stress, total amount of vacation time is more important. Not that given any range of vacation time, the effect will always be the same. For our lady with 100 days, imagine if she took it all at the start of the year. Or she took 25 day splits at the end of every quarter. With the insertion of D into our world, the CEO with 200 days wins. But does that mean in D's world, both options will result in exactly the same amount of stress reduction. Ultimately, our author is concerned with people with fixed amount of vacation time.

Yeah but you could also describe it as the phenomenon came second for the

researcher's hypothesis and for the anthropologist it came first. I think the titular reason why E is wrong is that the researcher isn't definitively arguing for that sequence of events plus A is more comprehensive as E whichever way you interpret it will be disregarding one important part of the anthropologist's argument.

HA! But seriously, the argument argues, but it argues that the evidence cited by the researchers could also be used to support another possible explanation, not that the sequence of events is reversed. For you to say that that is her argument, you'd have to point to an independent premise in the argument that she cites to support that conclusion, and there is none.

I think you are overthinking this question. Sure your world is plausible, but this is a must be true where we accept as true everything in the stimulus. The stimulus quite literally says " Passwords that are difficult to remember pose the greatest security of all." Saying anything otherwise will contradict the stimulus. You, on the other hand are concerned with questioning if the premise that they are generally written down leads to the conclusion that they are the greatest security threat, but for this question, you don't need to do that.

I think another thing to keep in mind is that you accept the stimulus as true for MSS. For your dog example, I'll give you a reason why your friends example is not analogous. But first I'll make an important distinction between a contradiction within the phenomenal world and a contradiction of opinions. Having contradictory view implies having two formed opinions that prima facie are incoherent. The colloquial definition of views or opinions is they are not necessarily based on facts or knowledge; contradiction on the other hand implies that they are opposed to one another. Now you see it would not make sense to say that "Two views or opinions are diametrically opposed to one another because of there is knowledge that undermines one of them in the world" It is the entire premise of the LSAT. Sometimes we are given premises that are opposed to the real world, and at the same time logically sound. So your friends example does prove that there's an inconsistency within their views in the real world, but within the realm of opinions they are not inherently contradictory to each other, precisely because specifying that they are views or opinions means that they are separate from fact and for them to be contradictory, they'd have to be a priori.

I usually spend around 2 minutes for this harder parallel reasoning questions which is quite reasonable given that I have saved time going faster on the simpler question. What I do to be quick is abstract the form from the stimulus. So now I need a some statement and an all statement and a some not conclusion. In a few seconds I can eliminate B and E and in my shallow dip i also see that D introduces some new Idea about unpublished poetry so i'm eliminating it quickly because it's most likely not my answer. So I only have to diagram A and C to get my answer.

I think you can get this question if you infer from the first text that social drinkers are drinking closer to the alcohol level which is why they'd be deterred.

You are assuming that losing money will cause them to reduce prices. Sure it is a tenet of economics but there are many exceptions to the rule where companies have enough power over the market to not do so. So what category will this company fall in? And that view is too rigid, as you are offered the presumption of truth in the question stem, so if an answer choice without a doubt makes your conclusion true, it is a strengthener