C is saying that modest / brisk walking will get you at least the same results as a more strenuous workout, which is wrong. A more strenuous workout will get you more dramatic results than a modest / brisk. It would've been correct to flip things around and say strenuous gets you at least the same results as modest / brisk walking

I think in the context of this argument, it's okay to see these terms as synonyms. The big distinction here is between:

- Modest / brisk walking

&

- Vigorous / strenuous

interested

Hold on-where in the stimulus does it say that the music has to be intelligible? #help

I think you should take a diagnostic test just to see where you stand, what are your weaknesses, strength etc.. You might be pleasantly surprised!

It would be like concluding something based on an experiment/study that involves a sample size that doesn't match the strength of the conclusion. A good example would be: "A study shows that the overwhelming majority of high school students from medium-sized cities in the nation want to go to college. Therefore, most high school students want to go to college."

We can't go from something focusing on medium-sized cities to the entire country. The sample isn't representative and cannot support the conclusion. Hope this helps!

A good test that you can do is 1/ is the AC accurately describing what's going on? 2/ is it the flaw?

I don't think so. The conclusion might have been supported had it said "This shows that Sparkle Cola elicits a more favorable response from MOST consumers (...)"instead of just consumers, which implies all consumers

This is irrelevant to the question. Don't let the LSAT writers distract you. In NA, you want to focus on the answer that has to be true, that has to be necessary. But to answer your question, often may imply most in the LSAT depending on the context. This isn't a hard and fast rule.

In NA, you want to select the answer that's necessary, an answer that if negated would completely destroy the argument. Try to negate answer D and ask yourself whether the author's argument would still stand. If the answer to this question is no, then you got the right answer.

Essentially the fact that other insects—with similar visions to that of bees—don't rely upon their vision to perceive an object's color (which doesn't mean they don't see colors and that bees have a unique characteristic they just don't rely on it) weakens the hypothesis that bees developed that feature in response to flower color. And by slightly weakening one hypothesis, it increases the likelihood of the other one—which we need to strengthen here!

E - Talks about the current weather and its impact on crops. It doesn't resolve the discrepancy

E is also wrong because the AC speaks about exaggerated cost estimates when the stimulus is about cost overruns

The key here is to grasp the question and understand the task. We have to explain the counterexample. By having a good understanding of the task, we can eliminate most wrong answer choices.

Real issue is going from individual scientists to larger community of scientist. This is where the flaw is!

MP

Conclusion: Without further details this teaching about WWI is bound to mislead

Premise: War wouldnt have happened w/o treaties and alliances, which are deeper causes of the war.

A-It did cause the war but there were deeper causes.

B-Purely speculative answer. Not the MP

C-Correct! Further details beyond the assassination ought to be stated

D-Purely speculative answer

E- Just like B and D

MP

Conclusion: We need to determine whether changes are warranted, taking into account price

Premise: some research would be abandoned + changes would be expensive

A-That's not the conclusion. It takes some part of the premise, though

B-Premise

C-It sure does but this isn't the conclusion. They emphasize on the reflection necessary prior to making this change!

D-Premise

E-Correct! Need to be aware=determine if changes are warranted! That's close enough

MP

Conclusion: Such knowledge isn't the easiest kind to acquire

"such knowledge" refers to the previous sentence.

Premise: It's hard and risky + people convince themselves they want things based on society.

A- This is premise

B- Tricky AC. This isn't what the author ultimately concludes

C-Not stated anywhere. It is hard, yes, but not once did the author said that.

D-Avoid making difficult decisions? this isn't stated anywhere.

E-Correct but hard to see! Knowing what one wants being difficult to acquire implies a lack of reliability

Eval question

Premise: 1K readers were surveyed and the 1984 book ranked 2nd as the book that influenced their lives the most.

Conclusion: 1984 influenced a great number of this newspaper's reader

A - Irrelevant! Even if they haven't read many, they can still say which one influenced them the most

B - Tricky to see but knowing that allows us to know how many people chose 1984 and to deduct whether this C is warranted!

C - We have a survey of 1k people that appears to be representative.

D - Irrelevant! Could've written 10 or 1 book it doesn't matter

E - No need to read a book cover to cover to be influenced by it!

RR except

The distribution of lamps is skewed during the UP with the greatest number of them present during the latest part of the UP when M culture was dominant.

A - Good! It provides a good reason why it's skewed.

B - Very similar to B, it provides a good reason. Good

C - More efficient techniques can explain a larger number. Good

D - Didn't need lamps if they had fire pits. Good

E - "Kinds" don't mean more of it. This is the right answer!

SA question.

Premise: Any writer whose purpose is personal expression uses ambiguous words.

Every poet's purpose is personal expression

Conclusion: Therefore, no poetry's readers enjoyment depends on getting a precise understanding

I relied on my intuition to get this one right knowing I had to find an answer that more or bless bridges the premises and the C to make it airtight (def of a SA)

A - Didn't eliminate this one right away. But looking at C, it highlighted the missing piece and flaw—enjoyment aspect & try

B - This isn't what we need. Irrelevant to make the argument airtight

C - That's perfect! Uses the right component of the argument to add the appropriate amount of support.

D - How do we know that? Not accurate or verifiable based on what we have + irrelevant!

E - We have no idea what those other readers like or don't. Pure speculation that doesn't add anything to the argument but confusion

Parallel flaw question

Premise: K's portrait of R was not accurate.

Conclusion: Therefore, your reproduction of K's painting will not be accurate.

A - Overlooked this AC in PT and BR. What's tricky is the jump between half-truths/misquotes to sound quality. But we have to look at these as subsets of something bad. Hence, it's because the speech was bad, the recording will be bad, which matches our stimulus.

B - Doesn't recreate what we need. No unless statement; no reproduction of something.

C - No reproduction of something that will be bad because the first one was bad.

D - Far off. The structure of the argument doesn't match.

E - We don't even know if the first one is enthralling. It pushes us to make an assumption that doesn't exist in the stimulus. It's not because something won an award that it's necessarily enthralling.

Flaw question

Premises:

CPI measures retail prices; the government uses CPI for retirement money; CPI doesn't take into account production cost.

Conclusion: Therefore, the value of retirement payment is sometimes too high.

The issue here is that we clearly went from retail prices to production costs. The LSAT writers push us to make an assumption and conflate these two very different notions.

A - It does fail to do this, but this isn't the flaw in the argument, though!

B- Not the flaw. This is irrelevant. We don't need further details about the nature of the goods at play to have a decent argument.

C - Similarly to B, this is irrelevant. The nature of the goods here is not what we care about or where the argument fails.

D - Descriptively inaccurate. This happens in many other questions but not here.

E - Yes! This is the problem we had identified in the pre-phrase!

Resolve/Reconcile question

Premise: The only differences between grapes and raisins are the caramelized sugar and the evaporation of water in raisins.

Conclusion: Therefore, the fact that raisins contain more iron per calorie (compared to grapes) is abnormal.

This is a tricky question. I tried to zero in on the differences: caramelized sugar could've been a decent reason since water contains no calories.

A - It doesn't explain the discrepancy per calorie. We want to understand why there is a difference in iron per calorie. Knowing what this answer says—which we can imply since they are drying in the sun—doesn't help us.

B - Tricky answer but correct. If caramelized calories don't count, it increases the ratio of iron per calorie, which explains why raisins contain more iron, not overall, but per calorie.

C - Body absorption of iron is utterly irrelevant here.

D - Irrelevant. Doesn't elucidate the difference in iron per calorie.

E - Just like C and D, this is irrelevant. We don't care about other food eaten alongside raisins.

Main Point/Conclusion question

Premise: Several studies show that stress can cause eating chocolate and acne.

Conclusion: It's probable that common wisdom is seeing an effect for a cause.

Cause: acne - Effect: eating chocolate

So, we're looking for an answer that says that common wisdom (some folks) are wrong confused about the correlation between acne and eating chocolate.

A - People are mistaken about the correlation aspect, not about the fact of insisting that something happened.

B - This isn't the conclusion at all. This is the false perception right before the conclusion.

C - Misrepresents the premise. It is the other way around.

D - Correct! It goes even a bit further than we needed to, but it is accurate.

E - False. This doesn't capture our conclusion.