You made the correct point of not combining the chain simply because they're not logically appropriate to combine yet answer choice A does just that. #help

Went from getting 5 star problems right to getting this wrong. So, fml

The answers where all shit to me, I could elim C, D and E, A sounded a lot better than B even though we where talking about punishment more than law. B's just a shitty inference.

I think this is the first ever 180 curved question I got right and I didnt even have to guess. Im so fucking happy.

For future readers of this question - do not confuse flat fee (penalty) with something like a

monthly expense (here in NY they say join now for a flat fee, buy now for a flat fee, rent now for a flat fee)- I did this and it made the question much more confusing.

I had A, it had everything except what I felt was a conclusion of sorts.

Then I read D.

D just read "fuller". Not as precise and it had what i find trap comparisons (theme that occur in the stimmy that incorrectly mentioned in attribution)

Went back and said man its A, I know its A but then kept looking at D.

D is the regret. D is the fear of wanting to get the right answer creeping its head in and denying it.

I got caught up on answer choice C, the wording threw me off. I looked at values, check, then looked at moral principals and my brain just said "wait that's not the same word, this is out of scope" and if its out of scope it then it doesn't necessarily mean it weakens is how I justified picking this answer.

I get it now that moral principals are shared between cultures and in essences that can weaken the argument since there are similarities present. However my brain just cant seem to get over this lump of value=/= principals, as contradicting as that sounds. Any advice on how to get over this issue? Or maybe better understanding this issue? Should I automatically assume that words that are similar in meaning mean the same thing unless its plain obvious that they're not meant to?

#help

I got the answer right thankfully, my concern with this is im probably missing something due to the use of because in the stimulus (for, since, or because are introduced then the conclusion is in the sentence(before or after). Wouldn't "the use of oil fell . . . gas for heating" be some sort of sub conclusion in that case? #help

Ignore this statement :P

C is also wrong because the phenomenon MUST occur according to the stim, not that it CAN occur

Just to rehash- the authors conclusion is directly contradicting the some peoples contextual argument right? That is, by saying it what you're saying is impossible (in lsat lingo) because I have evidence that states it is impossible?

On another note this would be not a correct weakening answer (lets say we where asked to weaken the context rather than the main argument) because it directly attacks the contexts conclusion right?

#help

Look maybe I did this wrong, BUT I saw the word but and knew that most likely what im dealing with is context - which generally seems to be something that is pre-existing prior to the authors conclusion. So I looked at the answer choices and boom picked E since it was the only thing that kind of described what context is lmao

Thank you logic games for allowing me to not scrutinize D a lot. All those Or games where if A happens or doesnt, what happens to B made- well those finally leaked on over.

Dude, I had this right on timed. During blind review I had this nagging feeling that these AP questions usually do not have a MC answer choice as the right answer. Well, shit.

I need to write this down, so I dont forget and maybe it will help someone else.

The tricky thing here is the order we are given the conditional information and if you're like me and you made this mistake, which I will mention below, and got the answer right - it was probably due to your intuition.

The issue here is that

IF you are a CN THEN you have been lied to, then they say anyone who lies is deceptive and if you're like me and you skim some details while reading, you will probably do something like this (CN -> Lied2 -> PD) which is incorrect.

Its saying that PEOPLE WHO LIE, not PEOPLE WHO ARE VICTIMS OF LIES practice deception. Then it follows with IF you are a VICTIM of a lie THEN you Lie and IF you Lie THEN you practice deception. I know it goes without saying to read every detail but damn is it easy to forget when youre racing.

Conditional language is used "The only cause ... subjects flight" this was not diagramed - Any particular reason to ignore it? Were coming off of lessons where we had diagramed just about everything, yet here its ignored. #help

Based on because, since, for rules- there are two sub conclusions in this. Anyone else catch that or am I wrong to assume that those where sub conclusions?#help

I got

C -> D

SC -> D

so I just linked it this way: SC- > C and thats what answer D says. I just feel like maybe ive messed up the reasoning here.

This question felt like a pseudo banana republic version of a resolve the paradox QM rather than a principal question.

Ive noticed subsets appearing a lot (PP, PPF, F, and PC here for example) - what resource(s) would anyone recommend that would aid in being able to identify subsets?

Edit wont add the question mark when editing with #help

Just so I'm on the right path towards understanding the logic here- its

IF you have tmu THEN you must have a Free econ, UNLESS it could be another economy?

so basically this (TMU→ECON) UNLESS COMMUNISM maybe achieves it, then we can write it this way if we want that to happen.

TMU - > Communism (maybe finally did it).

IDK if I'm allowed to make this assumption or if it even has a hint of being correct, but thats the only way I'm understanding this.

Second part says- if it doesnt have a free economy (any other economy applies) then they must not be trying to achive tmu

Communism (as an example of a non free market)-> tmu not likely

The flaw here is we don't know how likely they are in achieving it and that's also subjective too - we only know, through inferences, if they're compared to a free market econ that they won't achieve it as logically perfect as them.

--

Like im not even sure if my first conditional chain (TMU -> Free econ) is even correct even though the indicators are there. #help

I remember doing this question in the past -I got it wrong then (picked C). Fast forward a month later this comes up again and im all like "Bruh I've been killing it (respectful to my ability*), this question stands NO CHANCE" proceed to pick C again. At least now its way more obvious why its wrong - so subtle - and if you can catch it you're probably scoring pretty high.

These subcategories are annoying tbh - I just diagramed it as if Spirit -> /M -> P. I just added the spirit in the chain - seeing as how I still got the right answer im ok with continuing this but it does make the problem a lot more complicated

I read it as, If you have public trust, then you don't necessarily have work experience. However, JY says its the opposite but I cant wrap my head around why.

Interesting. I would say think about it like this. Conclusion = (A) Sufficient condition, Necessary assumptuin= (B) Necessary condition

A→B

if we have A, then we MUST have B (as JY said, if anything goes missing in the necessary conditions list in this example, (/B) then we don't have the conclusion (/A)

Let's get crazier, let's add the Sufficient assumption as Z

Z(practically a unstated premise that offers absolute support for conclusion and other premise(s))→(validates)→A→(validates the existance of)→B

I included a description of what the arrows do, which allows the flow of this conditional.

If we don't have /B, we don't have /A, and then we don't have /Z. So in a way necessary assumptions are needed- by themselves they can exist with any conclusion attached to them, however, without them, any sufficient assumption fails that would be attached to a conclusion that would be attached to the necessary assumption.

Maybe someone might have an opinion on this?

I've been doing a lot of logic games and this just seems like the way to look at it but, I'm not an expert, I would suggest just trying this out and seeing if it works toward giving you the right answer