I see the issue. Now I wonder, I always finish my BR faster than a time like 15 minutes sorta out of frustration or because I feel like 15 min I'd rather watch the video and do other problems. Should I stop this habit? I think BR always tests my patience and my patience tends to fail.
I think it does not explain the discrepancy even if it is in the same sector b/c then we'd have to assume this is a one-off occurrence of adding safety training yet accident still go up. Also, giving me one example in manufacturing where this didn't happen doesn't matter much - the fact is that we have 1 example where safety training works and still 1 example where it does not work, so there is no resolution found. If there were 50 other cases then it could help! Just my thoughts on it.
I got this right, so I'll take a crack at describing what went on in my head. I immediately looked back the low-res summaries and saw that the opponent is saying that custom illustrations still distort facts, so the authors says that no, that isn't what happens and actually the information is just more relevant. Then I took a look at answer choices.
A - I immediately cut this out because the entire passage is about why opponents think customs are bad for use and the author thinks they are totally okay for use. NOT whether they should be used more, just whether they are okay to use.
B - I checked back on the previous paragraph argument and noticed that yes, this is a variant of that. However, I just noted this as probably good, but kept going.
C - The author never says that medical textbooks aren't well suited for the courtroom. They are obviously going to be well suited, but the author just says that custom illustrations do x,y,z things different from medical textbooks for x,y,z reasons.
D - The entire passage is about discussing the controversy of custom illustrations, but that doesn't mean the point of this paragraph is to also do that. The lack of specifics coupled with answer choice B sticking out as better allowed me to cut this answer out. This also seems to forget about the fact that the author has a dog in this fight; it's not just that a debate is being presented.
E - Again, this feels like it forgets the author having a dog in this fight. The paragraph very obviously has the author showing opinion, so the answer saying that it just describes differences is leaving out a huge part of the entire passage, as well as this paragraph.
I did the question before watching the video and wasn't expecting it to be rated such a high difficulty, which was a little unsettling to me because I hope I didn't come onto the answer too fast. But after watching the video, my quick explanations felt like they lined up and made sense. Hope this is helpful!
Is it an intermediate conclusion? It seems like the two sentences following the argument part in question support that argument part, making the two sentences premises that support the intermediate conclusion that supports the main conclusion.
IN THIS FRENCH AHH RESTAURANT
wow i did what he mentioned last lesson to skip the rest of the choices if i feel confident and i finished 45 sec ahead :) ty JY
Same here. How's that been going for you? Have you just been drilling NA to improve?
no way - kingsway??
I came into this looking to be utterly surprised by how AC A is justified because I picked AC D on a drill and then AC B on a BR. AC D was easily disproven by my own justification during BR. After seeing the justification for AC A, I was annoyed because it clearly is not good. But after seeing the video on AC B, I completely understand why AC A is the BEST answer, even though it isn't necessarily good. I hope the LSAT does not have garbage questions like this very often because this sucked.
I wrote down the assumption I located (that the lead paint in the only cause of childhood lead poisoning in the area), but I confused tantamount with paramount. I now see that tantamount means equivalent, so C would've obviously been the answer. How to improve on LSAT vocab?
Same! But I realize that AC E having the word fundamentally wouldn't make sense because this is only about how industrial problem solving doesn't work in farming, not about in education, construction, etc.
I also chose A and not D, but I can see where I messed up. The "only if" vs "if" distinction is where I jumped the gun and clicked on A too fast. In AC D, it says that ONLY if the witness recognizes both parties, then the testimony should be used. This works in the argument because the client (one of the parties) is not recognized. It then follows that the witness's testimony should not be used.
However, in AC A, the inclusion of "if" means that if the witness knows both parties, then the testimony can be used. It does not tell us anything about what happens if the witness does not recognize both parties. The logical possibility remains that we could have 2 "if" statements - one of them could possibly say if the witness does not recognize both parties, we can still use their testimony. AC D's use of "only if" makes sure that there is only 1 "if" statement, and this "if" statement is what justifies the argument. Hope this helps!
I understand the point of knowing logic, but I have already taken a formal logic class. Now that LG is not included and it is only LR, should I rather focus on the modules for each type of LR question, rather than logic as a whole?
yes this is exactlyyy what I did. I'm seeing my error for sure now.