Thanks a lot for the help!!

I guess I'm just a little confused on the comments regarding conditional answers weakening when it fails to consider an aspect. So for instance for #13 since the argument failed to consider that researchers may think that the journal in which the citation appears is not highly regarded by leading researchers then that would weaken the argument?

Thank you for such a thorough explanation. I just want to clarify a few things that you mentioned. So when an answer choice say "If this....then this..." I shouldn't worry about actually determining if the sufficient condition occurred, but rather focus on whether the possibility of it occurring affecting the strength of the argument? Should I focus on the necessary part of the condition in determining if it addresses the gap of the argument? Sorry for asking so many questions

Oh sorry I didn't know that. The first one is from PT 4 section 1 #13. I was able to get it correct (D) by elimination but was hesitant due to not knowing if the sufficient condition had to be met. Does it not matter if we know that the researchers actually thought this way as long as it's a possibility then it weakens the argument? The next one is from PT 5 Section 3 #8 where i had trouble eliminating (E) even though (C) clearly weakens the argument. I guess the trouble I'm having is that I'm wasting time thinking about the conditional aspect of the answer and being unsure if it would actually affect the argument if its unclear that the sufficient condition has triggered. Is E incorrect because it doesn't matter that air pollution would increase if the total number of automobiles in use are increased as long as older automobiles are not the cause of the pollution? BTW Thanks a lot

Thanks for the response, Ya ill give 2 examples where a conditional answer is correct and another where its incorrect. Do you happen to have the early lsat such as PT 4 and PT 6? I can post the question if you don't.

Question 21 choice (A) and 19 lack clear reasoning for why answer choices are wrong so i will help those who are confused. For 21 (A) is wrong because there aren't supporting examples, but rather just results from an experiment which are different than examples. Examples are just a few among many others, while the passage only provides results from studies and experiments. The distinction between hypothesis and conclusion does not make it incorrect in my opinion because both need to have valid support.

Question 19 should be made into an abstract before looking at the choices. For example: He uses artificial device to determine whether animal behaves like you think it should-the animal should be attracted to the device. Also another crucial distinction is that a platypus clearly don't eat batteries so he can test specifically if the electricity was enough to attract the platypus. All of the answer choices are wrong for the same reason because its not surprising that the decoys could fool the animals. Whereas answer choice C, shows that animal would not go near the object unless it was attracted to the heat. Hope this helps those who were confused

Hi, I have a question regarding number 13 and answer choice (E). In passage A where does the author refer to modern day humans behavior in connection to the origins of music? His research evidence only talks about brain imaging studies and I don't see anything following that references their behavior. Rather I interpreted that the passage was arguing that since music and language share the same system for processing sound and language has adaptive value whereas music does not, that music originated on the "coattails" of language. I'm not understanding JY's understanding of why its correct because he refers to them both using research so are we supposed to infer from that fact, that they are actually using behavior of modern humans as evidence for the origin of music and language?

My explanation for why C is the correct answer is that I think you must focus on the core argument structure first. The conclusion argues that the theory that painters describe their current diets in their paintings is wrong! The premises used to support the argument is that they would have to eat sea animals while traveling to the island. My initial thought was that the argument is assuming that the painters are painting while they are traveling at sea or that they didn't bring any food with them. With these thoughts I was able to eliminate all the answers except A, and C. I looked at A again and realized that this does weaken the argument because they didn't have to paint sea animals on the island because their diet consisted on land animals which allows the theory to still hold. I chose C because it only boosts the already stated premise that their were no sea animals painted. In saying that, I mean that it does not hurt the argument that the theory is incorrect because the author's argument still stands because even though they painted some land animals that doesn't mean that these paintings described their current diets. They could have painted them for their beauty, symbolism, etc. So the theory could still be completely wrong because there were no sea animals painted and C offers no alternative explanation for why there weren't any painted, it only boosts the stated premise.

This question seems harder than it should be. The indicator words allow you to say that the role is the conclusion, but the premises that follow don't support the idea that the risk of such a collision will occur in the future in my opinion. The premises discuss what will occur after the collision rather than support the conclusion that it is actually likely to occur at all. Can anyone help with my understanding?

I'm with you splitter! I missed only 6 total on both LR sections during my October practice test. On the real thing I had to guess on six because I ran out of time. This test is just so brutal! Just when you think you have a section down well it blows up in your face. Going in reading comp was my weakest section in terms of timing, but I finished that section on time during my test. LR was my strongest but for some reason they felt so much harder than recent exams. I know my nerves had a role but I felt so inefficient and was second guessing myself at times.

I don't know for me I rather have that then they taking it on a little college desk where you don't have space for anything other than the test and a pencil.

I don't know why you say that because I took my lsat in June at JFK and the tables were amazing as far as space. It was just one huge table instead little tiny tables for each student. How do you know there was no space if you didn't take the test?

I thought this was a match the flaw argument when I read it I thought it committed an absence of evidence fallacy. Just because there wasn't any signs or evidence of life during excursions on the moon doesn't necessarily mean there hasn't ever been actual life. Maybe there was life on the moon when you didn't make an excursion? Is it wrong to view the stimulus this way?

I thought the flaw was that the whole doesn't equal the parts?

Isn't B just a mistaken negation?

So I thought E was just the contrapositive of the argument in the question. I thought the stimulus was arguing that if costs are greater than its benefits then its not justified. So when I read E I thought it was the contrapositive since its not designed to have net benefit for society then its too long or not justified. Is this the wrong way to view this?