All that is needed for money to disappear is a universal loss of belief.

How to translate it into logic?

I thought Disappear requires loss of belief (needed, necessary), therefore disappear -> loss of belief

Apparently, the relationship is reversal

the advertisement says the winners clearly recognized the plan. does that it mean endorsement?

I think what it adds to the complication is that its an advertisement, its not an expert testimonial. Secondly, it indicates "have clearly recognized"... we do not question the premise, therefore one may think "have clearly recognized" = endorsement

However, why does the conclusion have anything to do with "deliberately"? it only speaks about whether its a good plan. A good plan does not require being deliberate or lack of it.

whenever my brain stops functioning for the games, I switch to LR for some hope. Then my brain shuts down for everything.

As always, very much appreciate your timely response! Thanks, Cherry!

Congrats! If I had 169, I would be completely content to use it to apply for some decent schools. A difference of 1 point can really reflect a lot harder test?

any more response to this thread? Still confused about how to correctly translate the last sentence to proper lawgic.

C talks about winning a debate. In the stimulus, it talks about winning an election.

A specifically refers to "exciting" debate. But we do not know if the debate in the stimulus is exciting or not.

I believe LSAT makers are ETs.

let me try to refute the correct answer, and argue for AC D:

Argument: Managers should improve productivity. why? because I as boss believe the MOST efficient managers have excellent time management skills. So lets organize a workshop for the middle managers to learn time management skills.

Assumption is training leads to excellent skills which in turn make those middle managers most efficient.

D: Managers already efficient do not need to improve productivity.

AC D, implies that (all, including middle) managers already achieve max productivity, and therefore, no need for them to attend the workshop. there is no room for further improvement.

As a result, D weakens the argument.

As for AC C. It's too deep!! chances could be small to figure it out with time constraints and stress during test.

but hope for the best.

this is the only drawing i have really enjoyed so far in the explanation videos.

I am not buying into the explanation. i must be wrong. but this is my reasoning:

C is ruled out because the hypothesis was about COSMETIC DUST, its was NOT about volcanic dust.

Granted, D did not talk about temperature. But this cannot be used as an excuse against D. After all, A, B, and E did NOT mention temperature either.

So, correct me please.

thanks for sharing

Proposal: increase speed limit.

Author: objection

Author premise1: increased speed limit leads to decreased safety.

Evidence: increased speed limit leads to increased speed

(here it assumes that increased speed leads to decreased safety in order to connect with the above premise)

Author premise2: increased speed limit leads to increase speed for all drivers

(again, assumes increased speed leads to decreased safety)

A: directly contradicts premise 1,2

B: "uniformity of speeds" more important than low average speed

C: obviously not weaken. increased speed is not necessarily associated with unsafety

D: some violators will continue to be violators. violator used to drive 80 miles/hr (limit 50m/hr) now drive 100 miles/hr (limit 90m/hr). does this necessarily decrease safety? not necessarily . answer does not guarantee weakening.

E: none sense

So B. hard one.

this is a good LSAT question

bubble this up. i am sure the comments make a lot of sense to many people, but i still have no clue why AC C is the correct answer. Any one please help?

also. why cant judicial procedures - such as sentencing - be a part of the legal system? or part of law? i still dont get this.

believe it or not. I chose b.

Stimulus says the European music is independent of other things. For this reason - function becomes style (no longer does the function exists), it has a strong world influence. In other words, it is this change from function to style that makes the European music globally influential. B supplies a different cause.

style causes global influence

Expansionism partly causes global influence.

Since LSAT assumes the only/exclusive cause in the stimulus (this is what i said), therefore I chose B.

need help to truly understand why B is not right answer.

is it true at least one of this type of question must appear in each test?

#help (Added by Admin)

this question seems unfair to test takers who are unfamiliar with the definitions of referendum. but i finally got it after watching the explanation. needs practice

this question seems unfair to test takers who are unfamiliar with the definitions of referendum.