for those who wanted to look up the definition of apple to see if you understand the word: the round fruit of a tree of the rose family, which typically has thin red or green skin and crisp flesh. Many varieties have been developed as dessert or cooking fruit or for making cider.
Hi Jonathan,
To answer your second question: Your interpretation of AC C is correct, however (and now to answer your first question), it would not strengthen the conclusion. The conclusion is only stating that their own forecasts are more reliable than the more popular news channels. By reasoning out why the other news channels are more popular does not relate to the conclusion at all. All we want to do is reason out why our news channel is more reliable than the other more popular ones.
Fundamentally, we don't care about popularity, we only care about the forecast reliability which is what the premises are trying to support. We just need to strengthen the connection between the premises and the conclusion to get this question correct.
I hope that helps, it was harder to explain in words than I anticipated...
Thanks Dania807, this makes sense and helps me understand A as an answer choice more. I think I'm still confused on the use of "positive effect" in the answer choice. If possible, could you explain that a bit more?
#help (added by Admin)
I also thought the same thing and chose AC C. The only thing I can think about for why we can't immediately discredit the theory is because the next paragraph actually respects the theory and explains in detail why it is likely that it isn't the case for the pigeons. I am not sure if that's the right way to think about it, but it's the only thing that currently makes sense to me.
I'm wondering that too! I think it would be best to keep drilling LR just for more and more practice, but I also worry about whether I'm taking away time from practicing RC for example. I think ultimately I'm planning on doing at least one drill for one question type per day while I make my way through LG and RC.
I think initially glossing over this AC is due to an assumption you made to easily reject it. Sure, it might be easy to check the facts of whether the moon was obstructed, but the argument did not mention it or even allude to it.
I think it's important to just focus on the argument exactly. I also overlooked this answer choice and was getting caught up with AC C for example because it seemed like a totally reasonable reason for why Klein may have not given a reliable identification. But then when I stuck to the argument, the premise specifically in this case, I realized AC E was correct because it was the only one which related specifically to the argument about the moon.
All in all, I think it's key just to focus on the bare bones of the argument without making major assumptions to guide to the correct AC. I found this to be helping me a lot with these flaw questions, especially during BR.
I initially thought that B would be more easily understood with a background in how insurance works, but I think the main parts you need to know to choose B is that 1) they're making specific people pay more because 2) they expose the insurance company to paying more. Both of these ideas are explicitly stated in the answer choice, so I don't think you necessarily need to assume anything to choose AC B.
I hope that made some sense!
I'm not sure if i can explain it using Titanic, but I think the anime reference was just to help us visualize it.
Essentially the point of the reference it to show that we should never attack or contradict the premise or conclusion when answering weakening/strengthening questions. We should just take away how much the premise supports the conclusion (to weaken it) or increase how much the premise supports the conclusion (to strengthen it).
For example
Premise: All dogs are cute
Conclusion: Therefore cats are not cute
To weaken the statement, rather than just saying that some dogs are cute or dogs are not cute (which attacks the premise), we should say something like dogs and cats have all the same characteristics (which weakens the support the premise has for the conclusion by saying that just because the premise is true, it doesn't mean it supports the conclusion).
I hope that helps!
Because answer choice A involves drivers with large number of demerit points, we can assume the passage to be true which states that those with large number of demerit points should go to jail or get reeducated, but reeducated almost never works so the only option left is for them to go to jail
This one also took me forever!
I think your logic for choosing D would be incorrect because you are already assuming the conclusion is true (correct me if I'm wrong), but by saying M contained twice as many cans as L to prove the answer choice D, that's working backwards. You have to choose the answer choice that allows us to draw the conclusion that M contains twice as many cans as L, not the other way around.
Let me know if you have any other questions - hope that helped!
Right, the conclusion should be directly stated in the text. The principle is the overarching belief.
To separate the conclusion from other examples in the text, I find it to be helpful to see what statements are supporting which statements.
Voting, as described in the second sentence, is just an example because it supports the very first sentence.
If everyone thinks that they don't have to vote, then no one will vote SO "if citizens do not express their right to vote, then democratic institutions will crumble" (the conclusion). Of course, the reasoning isn't completely sound here, but the author is using it as an example to support that first sentence and not the other way around.
And then similarly, theft is used as an example.
I hoped that helped somewhat!
I don't know if I can explain this well, but I'll try in perhaps a couple different ways. I totally get your question because I thought the same.
I know they tell you not to rely on your outside knowledge, but I think you are supposed to assume that voters are inherent to a democracy. After all, you cannot have a democracy if you don't have people who vote.
In the passage, the conclusion - "if citizens do not express their right to vote, then democratic institutions will crumble" - relies on the fact that citizens are in a democracy. If the citizens were not a part of the democracy, then the conclusion doesn't make sense - there's no link between the conditional logic. For example, "if citizens of a monarchy do not express their right to vote, then democratic institutions will crumble" - that doesn't make sense. Now I know that we aren't supposed to have to evaluate the argument, but, this is just the conclusion, we aren't evaluating whether the premises support the conclusion or not, just the conclusion itself which should be a simple statement.
Hopefully that wasn't even more confusing that it already is.
Hi there,
How will the LSAT be administered in 2022/2023? I have finding mixed answers online.
Will it be live proctoring or remote proctoring?
Will the four sections be in a specific order (i.e., LG, RC, AR, LG? or a different order)?
Will it be online? If it is online, is it similar to how the tests are offered on the 7Sage platform or is it totally different? Will we be able to highlight/margin notes/scratch paper?
Thanks, any information would be much appreciated!!
When JY's "A loves B doesn't necessarily mean that B loves A" example hits a little too hard