This question was rough. A was almost so obvious I skipped over it and got lost in the details of the passage.

I've seen this question before but it still makes me think. It is tough. I'm drawn to D on the assumption that avoiding heart disease /= good health. But in this question, perhaps that assumption isn't all that unreasonable.

In D, it does attempt to appeal to the conclusion, so this is one reason why D is incorrect. In the conclusion, we discuss avoiding dairy foods just as we do in the support, which is this "appeal" (in my eyes).

In comparing it to A, A does a better job of describing the actual flaw in that avoiding dairy foods may have negative consequences, which could result in not having good health.

We also don't know if avoiding dairy foods helps in avoiding heart disease (okay, maybe you can make this assumption, but it's not directly stated). Perhaps there is something really beneficial in dairy foods that helps avoid heart disease which outweighs the cost of eating fat in dairy foods. Does this help? I don't know. But for me, it did.

Still, it's really tough though. lol

Most of the time, I feel like you can get away with not using lawgic. But this is not one of those questions...

I can't believe I got this question right. I usually miss ones like these. Slow improvement!

I really thought I had this in the bag till I blind-reviewed lol. What a tough question! This type of question you MUST remember exactly what you are trying to do... aka... breaking the connection between the conclusion and support. It's so easy to get lost in a trickier passage simply trying to understand it and forget what you need to do!

As soon as he said in the beginning B isn't saying what you think it might be saying (and it's not), I understood where I went wrong (once again missing questions because I don't read carefully enough).

This was such a tough question, not only because of the really complex passage, but because A is usually not the right answer to flaw questions. Even if you kinda understood the passage and made it to A, I still had such a hard time picking it because it went against my experience with answer choices.

The curve on this question is crazy.

Gahhh idk why the new 7sage is using lawgic for everything. This is pretty (and easier) to get without it. Here is this without drawing out the lawgic from how I got to C.

Conclusion: Art of still photography cannot enable us to understand the world.

Why? Main support is...

1. Reality of the world is not in its images but functions

2. Functioning takes place in time/must be explained in time

3. Only that which narrates can enable us to understand (I had no idea what this meant when doing the question but we don't need know what it means!)

I didn't know exactly where the question was going with this and where it needed to connect because it was so open-ended. I wasn't really anticipating support 1 because the passage talked a little about that. I had my eye out for connecting still photography to support 2 or still photography to support 3.

A) Nope. What if they are trying to understand the world through photography but it just won't work for them? Our main conclusion doesn't depend on this. They can try all they want, but it's not helping us support the idea that the art of still photography cannot enable us to understand the world.

B: This was a trap. BUT I quickly crossed it out because of film /= still photography! What if we are talking about videos, not still photography? You cannot make this assumption! We must be very specific.

C: Yep this is it. I didn't know exactly what it meant but this connects the main conclusion with the support so we can understand how we're supporting the main conclusion.

D: Na. We don't know how to obtain a complete understanding of the world. We just know it's not through still photography! The word "art" is too broad. Anyway! What if we are talking about movies, paintings, etc.? Maybe you can obtain an understanding of the world through this. Who knows? We don't.

E: No. Again, are we talking about still photography? OK. Maybe you can make this assumption. BUT we only know that functioning must be explained in time (no idea what this means but not important). We don't know that images can't be properly explained! This isn't the same thing as being explained in time. You, again, can't make this assumption.

When I tell you I had no idea what in the world was going on in this question or the answer choices... lol

So from my understanding, I think to get this question right is to see the difference between industries and individual businesses. It's so incredibly subtle. At least it was for me. Then just quickly cross out B and E because of their irrelevance because it's A, C, and D that set up decent traps (that caught my attention).

This one was tough. I dunno why answer choices weren't explained more, especially D. If you chose D, I'm sure you were thinking that they didn't consider lack of exercise as a cause of lethargy. You may be right. They didn't. But this is not the main point of the entire passage, which is why D isn't correct. The sentence about a lack of exercise in the passage is not the conclusion. It supports the statement that the study does not settle the question of whether fast food is unhealthy. The word "thus" right before that statement is the key indicator here.

Whenever I see this, I just replace the word "presupposes" with the word "assumes." Usually works out well and makes it easier for me to understand when I'm in a time crunch. @ explains the actual meaning better.

I got rid of E because we could try to find the animals a new habitat but that doesn't mean we should move the animals to this new habitat. Just because we find one that would be a new habitat, doesn't mean we can justify moving the animal. E is too weak to justify moving the animals.

In all my time of lsat studying... seeing this question multiple times... I can count on myself to get it wrong every time. I don't know what it is, but it is my arch-nemesis. lmao (but dying inside)

The key here was really approaching this as a strengthening question, where we want to strengthen the hypothesis. I did have to think about A, but I compared it to E and was able to eliminate A.

It's pretty simple in that A is not strengthening our hypothesis that being exposed to germs during infancy makes people less likely to develop allergies. Even if you say, well A could be correct, compare it to E and the entire purpose of the question. A does not provide any support about infancy or being less likely to develop allergies. It's talking about the opposite, being more likely to develop allergies, and we need to strengthen being less likely to develop allergies.

This one was tough. I read so fast I barely noticed the 24/12-year difference here, which is obviously important. Our correct answer choice is not going to explain why the study results are reaching different conclusions. I went in thinking of the year difference, food vs supplement, and what if different kinds of participants changed the outcome of the studies.

A: Sure, this helps. This explains the food vs supplement in that food with beta-whatever might help prevent cancer compared to the supplement which might not because people process the food with beta-whatever more effectively

B: This catches onto the time difference that the 12-year study didn't last as long as the 24-year study (obviously), so there wasn't enough time for people to benefit from beta-whatever in the 12-year study versus the 24-year study.

C: I didn't love this, but it does explain slightly. This is explaining and catching onto the food vs supplement thing and why it may be more beneficial to eat foods with beta-whatever versus taking supplements.

D: YES. It wasn't obvious right away. I read E first, then chose D. But D doesn't help explain the difference at all. If anything, it might confuse us more because the placebo might've made the 12-year study "more sound." For me, I did have to read E first before deciding on D and realizing D doesn't explain or offer to resolve why the studies might've had different results

E: This is such a trap. It's a confusing answer choice firstly. No joke. BUT E is providing some explanation as to why the 24-year study might've had different results than the 12-year. It's subtle... it is. I get it. I hardly even know what to say to explain why E is explaining lol. But this latches onto the participants in the study. Most importantly, it's simply explaining why the studies might've had different results. It's very hidden, but when I compared it to D, E offers at least some kind of explanation while D does not.

This is a good question to review every once in a while. The correct answer is popular enough we see it every so often, especially for difficult questions.

Conclusion: Privatization of the parks would benefit visitors to the park. --- now with weaken, let's attack this. Here's how I thought of it. Why might the privatization not benefit visitors? What if it makes it more expensive for visitors? Can we really connect the analogy of the privatization of parks to the telecommunications industry? Thinking of these things, we look at answer choices now.

--- Remembering to keep my conclusion in mind, focusing on park visitors and not getting distracted.... that's what makes this question difficult

A: The visitors of the park would benefit from this! This doesn't weaken the conclusion that park visitors might not benefit from privatization. Don't get distracted by "would not be politically expedient." Who cares?! Focus on the park visitors.

B: Ooh B made me think for a moment. But it is a distraction from the visitors! Don't fall for it. This requires multiple unreasonable assumptions that firstly, you can compare the telecommunications industry and park "industry" soundly. Secondly, because the telecommunications industry is now having problems, the park "industry" will too. Lastly, these problems affect telephone company customers and would thus affect park visitors. SO many assumptions. I didn't cross this out immediately, but I went hunting for a better choice that didn't require many far assumptions and talked directly about visitors.

C: Eh who cares? It's not strengthening or weakening. This isn't helping me that the privatization of parks might not benefit visitors.

D: Visitors are still benefitting!!! This is not helpful!! I know you would be panicking because E is the last option (I was) but keep going.

E: This does require an assumption. But it is not like B with many unreasonable assumptions! This directly attacks your support for the conclusion and breaks the analogy between the telephone companies and the parks! The main point of the support was that telephone companies benefited consumers from the competition. The national parks wouldn't have very little competition, so how would visitors benefit?! No idea because our analogy is now broken.

Very long explanation but hopefully a clear(ish), more simple way of how I thought through the question, especially under timed conditions.

"If you lose your cool in the passage..."

ME losing my cool when I read a complicated passage like this, especially under timed conditions lol

I'm so excited I got this right. I always missed these questions in the past. It still took me a hot second to figure out it was a numbers game, but I was so excited I recognized it.

If you missed this question.... practice, practice, practice! I promise... it will improve, and flaw questions are all about repeated patterns. If I can do it... so can you! <3

I could not figure out what in the world the second half of the passage was talking about. Luckily it wasn't relevant to getting the answer right or I would've been screwed lol

Conclusion: We can expect the number of jobs in the region to decrease overall if coal mining is allowed.

Let's look at this statement by itself, asking is it direct support for the conclusion? Meaning, can it stand alone and support the conclusion?....

"Many local businesses depend on the region's natural beauty." So, we can expect the number of jobs in the region to decrease overall if coal mining is allowed.

.... What? No? What does this have to do with anything? How does this help us conclude the number of jobs in the region will decrease overall? It doesn't! Not without assumptions, which we can't make! Thus, it can not stand alone in supporting the conclusion!

SO we need another statement that helps us connect, "Many local businesses depend on the region's natural beauty," to the decrease in jobs overall....

"The heavy industrial activity of coal mining would force most of them to close."

YES. Here we go. Now, we can connect the original statement (many local businesses) to the conclusion!

Hope that all makes sense lol. Pretty much exactly what goes on in my mind when I'm testing!

I got caught up on B, but the statement does not support that the sun has an unusually high abundance of these heavier elements for its age.

If it were the support the statement about the sun specifically, the statement would probably explain why the sun has an unusually high abundance of these heavier elements or how the sun has an unusually high abundance of the elements.

All the statement is doing that we are asked about is supporting the main conclusion.

I don't know what it is about this question or if I was just overly tired, but it went way over my head! I think I had some explanations I was anticipating that didn't match the answer choices... either way, I was totally thrown off by this question.