#help

This is one of the very few questions that I found negation test doesnt work, and JY didnt use the negation test in his explanation video.

Even if the tool wasnt in the region 5000 years ago, it does not invalidate the conclusion that Aboriginals built canoes 5000 years ago. Weaken the argument? Sure, but it is no where near invalidating the argument.

If the conclusion reads "the aboriginals of the region in Canada built the canoes", then yes I absolutely agree that it is a necessary assumption.

But since the conclusion is not geographically limited to that region, who cares if the tool was made in Vancouver but found in Halifax? Aboriginals in Canada could still have built canoes with it.

Same. B has a much weaker support than other correct MSS questions answers.

Just because they ate a wider variety of plants than anyone else doesnt mean they are the only people who ate any one of the plants they ate.

#help

I am still not convinced by the explanation as to why A is incorrect.

JY said that it is not true that findings was not carefully derived. I disagree.

Temple's hypothesis was that Dodo's death prevented C. major's pits from abraded sufficiently to germinate. He fed pits to turkeys and some seeds germinated. It clearly goes against his hypothesis that Dodos are necessary for C. major's pits to germinate.

To say that Temple's conclusion that this result supports his hypothesis can be considered to be carefully derived flies in the face of common sense.

I also don't like how 3 seeds out of 10 counts as a quantitative experimental result. We have no indication as to the number of seeds he fed in total as well except that its 10 + many, which in LSAT speak means 11 or more.

The way I approached the question was different from how JY did it.

The question stems asks us to identify the logical relationship between the two statements, so it is something like what was T's statement doing in relation to J's statement. For example, it could be raising additional considerations to reject the other's conclusion, denying the others' premise but agree with the conclusion, etc.

First off I looked at what J is doing. He presented a dichotomy.

What T did here was he raised an additional consideration, namely that he failed to consider that if consumers demanded environmental responsibility from the business, then the dichotomy (the conclusion) presented by J is not true.

Plug these into the answer choices, it is clear that only A fits the bill (J presents a dichotomy and T adduces an additional consideration to show that it is not a dichotomy after all) and the rest is not even close.

Edit: The 'dichotomy' in C isnt a true dichotomy in its own right but the dichotomy in the question stem is a true dichotomy. You can either invest or not invest, there is no middle ground.

I eliminated E because the stimulus provided that the birds were flying away from the vegetation into windowpanes when they are startled while feeding in the garden, so they were closer to some vegetation than windowpanes when they are startled.

The stimulus also provided that if startled by predators, birds fly to nearby vegetation. So the birds flying away from vegetation (not flying to nearby vegetation) is a negation of the above, so that left me with D. The reason why they were not flying to nearby vegetation was that the cause of their startle was not predators (e.g. loud noise).

Not sure what went wrong in my analysis so I would be much grateful if there could be some #help!

I fell for C both in timed and BR, but after listening to JY's explanation, I think I have came up with a reason why C is wrong and D is right.

MK's statement was that (presumably) the side effect would render a double blind test impossible, and E replied that MK is assuming the result of the test.

The double blind test is a test for efficacy, so the result of such test would relate to the therapeutic effect of the drug in question.

So E alleged that MK was talking about the therapeutic effect of the drug, when MK was actually referring to the side effects of the drug, which is exactly what D says.

As for C, 'no effect' is a strong statement. It may or may not be true that E assumed MK assumed that the placebo has no effect (it may even be true that MK assumed that placebo has no effect, we just don't know), but since this statement does not have to be true for us to understand what went wrong with E's understanding of MK's statement, D is the better answer.

Contrast C with D, you can see that E must be thinking that MK was referring to the drug's therapeutic effect when he said that MK assumed the result of a double blind test, when in fact MK was only talking about (presumably) the side effect of the drug. E's statement wont make sense had he not interpreted MK's statement to be talking about the therapeutic effect of the drug.

Anyways, I agree that it is a badly written question as its vague wording lends itself to a plethora of equally valid interpretation. Ever heard of the Death of the Author, LSAT writers?

#help

To me, Q18 is a poorly written question.

C has 2 equally valid interpretation and one of the interpretation can be a correct answer in my opinion.

The holding explains the decision but does not include it. What does not include what?

It could mean (1) the holding explains the decision but the holding does not include the decision, or (2) the holding explains the decision but the decision does not include the holding.

Only if I interpreted C as (2) would C be a wrong answer.

I wonder if there is any suggestion as to how to deal with these potentially correct interpretations of answers?

Thanks!

I actually think E makes more sense than D.

D sounds like a double-edged sword to me so I ruled it out in the first place.

Lets say Roadwise made 2 ads for its products for 2 different demographic groups (which there must be at least 2 pursuant to the argument)

Ad A: A funny and offbeat ad, targeting at demographic group X;

Ad B: A serious and informative ad, targeting at demographic group Y.

What D says is that Ad A is likely to alienate Y, and Ad B is likely to alienate X. How can a marketing strategy that is likely to piss off both of its target group be a "smart" one?

E, on the other hand, I interpreted it as "ads dont influence a target demographic if it didnt meet its expectations.".

Sure as hell it helps explain why a diverse range of ads is clever. If Ad C doesnt meet its expectation (using JY's example, the joke in the funny ad doesnt make the target audience laugh), theres still Ad D which may do so.

The difference in demographics also explains why sometimes ads dont live up to their expectation (elderlies are unlikely to find a joke about rickroll funny, for example) so again, a diverse range of ads helps.

Whether the ads fall short or not doesnt really matter because if the ad didnt fall short, it doesnt make more ads a bad idea (nothing in the question stem suggests so), and if it does fall short, then surely more ads will be a good idea.

Edit timer ran out.

I am struggling to express why X is also a sufficient condition using Lawgic coz it was intuitive to me thru the Venn diagram method. But I will try again.

I think we both agree X is a necessary condition to Y.

But X is also a sufficient condition due to the word "reason".

Consider this statement: All apples are edible.

- Being edible is a necessary condition for something to be an apple. (-E → -A)

- Being an apple is a sufficient condition for something to be edible. (A → E)

Translating it back to English, I would say this thing being an apple is a reason for it to be edible, but it would be weird to say this thing being edible is a reason for it to be an apple.

So the word "reason" carries the meaning of something being a sufficient condition of another thing.

I'm simplifying the AC to "X is the only reason to Y"

So as JY said, this means X is a necessary condition to Y. (Y → X)

But additionally, if X happens, then Y has sufficient reason to occur, because Y is otherwise simply impossible (X → Y).

Or if you imagine it as a venn diagram, X and Y are two exactly the same circles superimposing on each other.

#help

I'm not sure if JY has described Answer Choice C correctly.

Isn't Answer Choice C an "if and only if" statement and therefore entails public opinion as both a necessary and sufficient condition for removal? (R ↔ POA but not R → POA)

That said, I agree that Hector is silent on whether POA constitutes a necessary condition, making Answer Choice C a more attractive trap answer than a simple incorrect negation.

#help

Exactly. I chose C because thought the flaw here was that the author was trying to conceal the fact that to convict, one must first be indicted (C → I) , so people who thinks that politicians should resign if convicted must be no less than 50%.

I therefore proceeded to conclude that the use of 'conviction' in the conclusion was trying to use the polling result to cover up the inherent incompatibility within the conclusion itself.

i.e. conclusion that I → R > R → C is unwarranted because it traded on the (unstated but by definition) ambiguity that C → I and since I → R, R → C → I → R must be no less than I → R.

Since the LSAT writers clearly dont agree with me, I suppose assuming that C → I is something I shouldnt do?

#help

Exactly. I chose C because thought the flaw here was that the author was trying to conceal the fact that to convict, one must first be indicted (C → I) , so people who thinks that politicians should resign if convicted must be no less than 50%.

I therefore proceeded to conclude that the use of 'conviction' in the conclusion was trying to use the polling result to cover up the inherent incompatibility between the conclusion and its premise.

i.e. conclusion that I → R > R → C is unwarranted because it traded on the (unstated but by definition) ambiguity that C → I and since I → R, R → C → I → R must be no less than I → R.

Since the LSAT writers clearly dont agree with me, I suppose assuming that C → I is something I shouldnt do?