For those who were also confused by the contrapositive of AC C, the contrapositive I originally wrote was: PD -> Cancelled

I realized during review that I lost sight of what the conditional statement was saying. What if 0 police dramas were produced last season? If this is true, then it cannot provide support for the conclusion that the new TV programs that are produced this season. all of which are police dramas, will be cancelled.

For people who are struggling with the translation for E who are confused about the phrase "if transferred to compact disc", this is not an embedded conditional statement because it modifies/describes profitable.

You may also read this as "...would be profitable when transferred to compact disc". This statement does not provide a conditional relationship or rule for being profitable :)

I think another way to understand B is that it is saying that: Direct knowledge of our thoughts is usually due to our expertise, and we simply overlook instances where we are not experts

The second paragraph says that the illusion of direct knowledge is analogous/similar to what happens to us when we we become experts in something. This is not the same as saying the illusion of direct knowledge is because we are experts.

For those who are having issues with the word "ironically" in answer choice A, I didn't quite like the explanations that I found online about the critics being part of the record companies, thus making the critic's statement "ironic". I just didn't see any tangible evidence for this.

Had to put my ego aside and Google search irony which can mean: "Contrary to what one may expect". It would go against our expectation for record companies to embrace classicism (aka traditionalism) that is even more severe than the kind that critics said Marsalis embodies.

In Marsalis's version of classicism, paragraph 3 indicates that traditional elements can be "recombined" and "reinvented". The record companies don't want any kind of change to traditional music at all, as they are simply re-selling it.

I think E can be an attractive answer because it suggests that our numbers for the ulcers are more accurate.

However, in the event that the other two countries are over reporting their numbers, it weaken hurt the argument that we suffer significantly fewer ulcers. For Strengthen/Weaken questions, I have noticed that the test writers will throw in an answer choice that can be interpreted in two ways (positively or negatively).

An LR perspective on A.C. A and D.

The argument in the passage is that the Shelley decision is problematic. A and E indicate that if the decision is problematic, then something else must occur. This is a confusing a sufficient condition with a necessary condition!

@SILVIAHAIDARI I was also looking for this and believe that this is referenced in the line,"it (muralism) reflected important innovations in the art world". I think this line allows us to infer that muralism is inspired by modern trends.

If you also struggled to understand "empirical implications",

I originally mistook implications for consequences but the term actually means an inference or suggestion.

With that in mind, the second and third paragraph do serve as empirical (observable) inferences for the claim made in the first paragraph, which is that cooking has an impact on biological evolution.

Hello, is anyone in this thread studying to take the LSAT next year? I live in downtown PHX and would appreciate a study buddy :)

Something that helped me eliminate AC B

In questions like these, I try to answer yes or no to see the impact it has on the argument.

~ Yes: OK so manufacturing new signs is considerably more expensive than old ones. The argument is saying installation is a waste of money, the manufacturing cost is not relevant.

~ No: OK the new signs are not considerably more expensive to manufacture than the old ones. This does nothing to weaken the argument which again, focuses on installation. The new signs could cost $1 and the old ones could cost $10, but the installation of the new ones could be $100, while the old one could be $30.

@swagbobfaxpants I was just reading that "some" means at least one. For example, if I say some of my friends will be coming over for dinner, it can mean at least one of my friends will be coming over for dinner. We just know that it will not be all of my friends coming over for dinner :)

@vandallhaley E commits an "absence of evidence" flaw. Just because the connection between hormone concentrations and reproductive abnormalities is not fully understood, there can still be a relationship between the 2.

The absence of evidence does not prove that there is no relationship between the 2! Additionally, "not thoroughly understood" is quite specific and leaves open the possibility that the connection between the 2 is still understood, just not throughly understood.

@hsuyt25 The negation of a conditional (X -> Y) is (X -> /Y).

Conditional: Political system that aim at prevent conflict -> legitimate

Negation: Political system that aim at prevent conflict -> /legitimate. This would translate to there is at least one political system that aims at preventing conflict and is not legitimate.

An explanation for eliminating B:

"Takes for granted" means necessarily assumes. Does the author need to believe that technological benefits to a society cannot be commercially viable?

No, the author can believe technology beneficial to society is commercially viable with no harm to the argument. In the stimulus, the author says that people responsible for the advances strive to make commercially viable technology. Technology that is beneficial to a society may or may not be commercially viable!

Something that may be helpful for understanding B.

Premise: Today's crops are less diverse.

Conclusion: Disease that cause minor harm to past crops would now be devastating to present crops.

My Prediction: What if today's crops are genetically modified and more resilient?

Reasoning: B) Attacks the relationship between the premise and conclusion, affirming that both are true but there is a gap the author overlooks. If crops are can quickly replaced through seed banks, then disease would not be devastating for presents crops, despite there being less crop diversity.

Hope this is helpful :)

Answer Choice E is also supported by Line 44: "In one example of such symbolism..."

I initially chose D because I was focused on how the author was utilizing the analogy of Naomi's past with the story of turning stone into bread. Line 44 helped me to see that this was an example the author was using the convey their point. The author wasn't drawing a connection between the concept, but rather emphasizing how Kogawa did.

Hope that helped! :)

Shoutout to Kevin's explanation! So encouraging as well ~

Kevin's explanation of this was a lifesaver 🤩

Hello, I live in downtown Phoenix and would also be interested!