I was looking for JY to map the obscure language of E back onto the stimulus.
I think I figured it out, so if it's helpful for anyone:
E) Something would be impossible (it would be impossible that Brillo Boxes would look identical to an ordinary stack of boxes) if a particular thesis were correct (the thesis that appearance alone determines whether or not something is considered art) is actually true (they tell us that it's true that Brillo Boxes look identical to an ordinary stack of boxes).
Good luck!
Hi,
Thanks for offering the help! Wondering if you had any advice on how to break solidly into the 170's.
Scored a 169 in August. I've been PT'd in the high 160's and low 170's, fluctuating every now and then into the mid 170's. Any advice is greatly appreciated.
following! where can we find this link?
Okay so I think posting makes me anxious that someone is going to be like "wow ur dumb this is so obvious," which may have been a kick in the ass to think harder. I'm going to leave this up in case it helps anyone else.
While I don't think my justification for D is bad, I'm assuming that the other scientists KNOW that the math principles underlying Emeawagli's model apply to other parallel computer systems, too. That's a substantial assumption to make in retrospect, since everyone didn't just know about Emeawagli's weather model - he had to present on it in 1996!
My justification for D assumed that:
1) Other scientists were skeptical about the widespread applicability of nature's mathematical principles
2) And that they were aware that the math principles underlying Emeawagli's oil model ALSO underlie other massively parallel computer systems
Okay good talk!
Please #Help on Q12
I'm having trouble justifying why D is wrong.
I was thinking that D eliminated the possibility that the mathematical principles underlying Emeawagli's model weren't actually useful beyond what Emeawagli had already done with them.
The loophole would be: what if the mathematical principles aren't applicable to other issues?
D would eliminate this loophole (and thus strengthen the claim) by saying: yo the mathematical principles are actually useful beyond predicting oil flow!
The guys at Powerscore put on sessions predicting what's going to be on upcoming LSATs, and the session for the August 2021 sitting happened yesterday.
I missed the session and don't think I can access a recording at this point but was wondering:
Thanks!
Ad hominem is a type of flaw- it's a poor way to argue. Knowing that E is correct, E must not be a case of ad hominem, because then the LSAT would be committing a logical fallacy.
So E then isn't attacking the character of the person (not an ad hominem flaw)- it's just pointing out a contradiction in what they've said.
Is that the correct way to understand this? #help
The hesitation I had with B was on whether or not you can be damaged when your starting point is neutral? Like maybe you don't have to initially be advantaged on some pedestal to then be damaged? You can be damaged when not starting from a point of advantage?
Any insight on this? #help
D is essentially pointing out: "what if I refrain from comparing myself to others but I STILL end up being dismissive and self-disparaging?" which... is kinda sad lol
"just IMAGINE! there are SO many ways you can get to the point of being both dismissive and self-disparaging! :D the world is your oyster!!!"
okay please #help with E
The reason I chose E was because I was thinking that it was it was possible that all jury members DID BELIEVE Tagowa's testimony (contrary to the stim's conclusion) but that some members just disagreed "with each other about the significance of... testimony" (per answer choice E).
The root of my confusion is that "significance... of a testimony," seems like a distinct concept from believing a testimony.
Can anyone share some insight on this? #help
Not sure if this is a valid way to eliminate B- would love your input!
B is factually inaccurate, since the philosopher doesn't overlook this possibility- she calls it out. She is saying that nature is organic and nonlinear BUT she also then recognizes that traditionally, it has been thought of with linear reasoning.
I took this as meaning that she didn't actually overlook this possibility, making AC B descriptively inaccurate.
#help
I was looking at this through the frame of the P and C structure that JY sometimes uses.
/intrinsic --> extrinsic
------------------------------------------- ("thus" introduces our conclusion)
/intrinsic --> matter of taste
So the missing piece is:
extrinsic --> matter of taste
Being a matter of taste means /objective, making C correct. In other words extrinsic --> matter of taste --> /objective.
Is there a distinction to be made here between /bad art and good art? That was my only hesitation with D, but maybe this is just a silly technicality.
Would it be an even stronger answer choice if it had said "art need not represent reality accurately to not be bad art"?
Does anyone have more insight on why E is wrong? #help (Added by Admin)
I now understand the strength of D, but am still not totally confident that I wouldn't choose E again in a different circumstance.
I initially chose E, because the premise is that we can find instances of bias and false historical explanations, so I was thinking that the flaw was assuming that because there were some cases of this bias, that all cases were biased which is what E was pointing out.
Thank, y'all! And happy studying!
On first pass, I didn't like that A ended with "found within their boundaries." I guess it's just the use of natural resources that brings wealth, so this doesn't matter?
I think that i was having the same confusion as you! It's definitely unpleasant when it seems like everyone gets a question easily, and you struggle haha, so I was glad to see your post! What helped me was assuring myself that the end of the ice age in Sweden meant the ice melted there, so I diagrammed this (imperfect) lawgic:
melting ice --leads to--> cracks
Sweden had melting ice
Sweden had earthquakes
_
melting ice --leads to--> earthquakes
I'm not sure if this will help anyone in the comments looking for help, but this made it more clear to me why D strengthens the argument.
Is "many" effectively the same as "some"? Doesn't seem to do all too much
How can I access the last section of the Flex PT's? I want to use it as a drilling section but am having trouble accessing it. #help
Wow I didn't see this bi-conditional at all... maybe the takeaway is that I need to be even more keenly aware of indicators. Alarm bells should go off when I see "required," and "the only," and I should've figured that there was something funky going on.
The way that JY diagrammed this felt like it was improvisation, and I feel like I'm poor at improving like that to make the English fall into some roughly lawgical language. I used an unclean translation into conditional to understand this question. Is this an okay way to go about this?
P:
CPU size decrease ---> CPU speed increase --> computer speed increase
/CPU size decrease
C:
/Computer speed increase
We fail the sufficient condition, so we can't conclude that a necessary condition is then failed. CPU size decreasing doesn't have to be the only thing that could've increased the speed of the computer. It's possible that there are other sufficient conditions that could trigger the necessary to be true. I don't know if this will help anyone else, but this is the framework through which I saw the gap and figured how A patched it.
JY mentions that there's a gap in the stimulus between large families and exposure to germs. Can somebody talk a little about the role of the gap/assumption here?
There also seems to be a gap in AC E between daycare and exposure to germs... How do these gaps affect our analysis of the strengthening? Is it just a nuance to be aware of on this specific question or is there a bigger picture idea that I'm missing here?
#help
Can anyone help me out? I hesitated on AC A, because I wasn't sure that "evidence showing that M can cure athlete's foot," was an acceptable translation of C-->M... if someone was cured, then they were treated with M. Isn't there an assumption being made here that M was the cause of them being cured?
Maybe this is a fair assumption given that the groups were randomly selected?
#help
Thank you for your thoughtful response and help!
On #21 JY, talks about questions that ask for what "underlies" the reasoning and talks about the support structure with the principle being supported by the passage and if it's the correct answer, it should also confer support back to the passage.
Are these questions distinct from principle questions or is he just talking about principle questions? #help
I also struggled with this question, but it helped me to think about it this way:
I think you're right that the method of reasoning in E is the same as the stimulus - that's also how I interpreted it. I read B as also following the same method of reasoning as E and as the stimulus:
Motives -> conscious -> articulated
Motives -> unconscious -> not articulated
One route gives way to more information, thus skewing the data.I think the difference that makes B right instead of E is strength of the conclusion.
The stimulus concludes "One can learn... very little about what makes a spy succeed" which has some wiggle room... they're saying we can perhaps still learn some things about what makes a spy succeed.
B matches that. It concludes "People are more likely to hear about other people's conscious motives than their unconscious ones," which is also not airtight. You're more likely to hear about conscious motives but perhaps we can still learn about unconscious ones.
E, on the other hand, is misaligned in the strength of its conclusion. It concludes that "It is impossible to discern..." There's no wiggle room here; this is a strong and powerful conclusion. It is "impossible" to learn about the other side.
Hope this helps!