The simplest way to think about this is that, to weaken the editor's argument, you can challenge the editor's logic.

The editor weakens the argument by saying that the same amount of trash will be picked up. Less time or increased efficiency does nothing to counter this, but making pickups easier would mean collecting more trash. Thus, it weakens the editor's argument.

So you are not really attacking the premise but the logic of the premise by showing an alternate aspect that may increase the recyclables collected (something the argument overlooks).

I think the easiest way to understand this and how I got it right was to focus on the flaw. The flaw is that it draws a conclusion on the basis of accepting one claim while not accepting another without reasoning which is also the flaw in A.

I think the a more reasonable explanation of why A is wrong would be that it states wolves discourage other predators from moving into the area this implies that these preceptors were not already there. In the case of A the effect it brings in therefore bring in no effect at all, if these predators were already not there then the wolves preventing them from coming makes no difference. At the same time the fact that C prevents disease that would have killed a larger number and in the process only kill those that would have dies anyway gives us an apt answer to why despite wolves killing there is growth.

So I had the same thought but I think the nuance lies in the fact that their dietary habits would not explain the nocturnal part.

Like predators being there during the day time and being able to notice one set better would lead to the explanation that the set that could get noticed more easily by the predator during mornings would have to work more during the night to not get hunted down and collect nutritional resources .

At the same time answer E explains why they would have to work more but it does not answer why they work more at night, in the case of E the question as to why don't they just work more in the morning still remains.

I hope this helps.

laughed out loud coz of ur comment, gas lighting on an lsat prep course is diabolical

Hilarious how I got most of the others wrong but got this right.

I think the explanation kind of over complicates it. An easier way would be:

Stimulus Analysis:

Premise: In a situation where more of certain type of people (students) are there more of something is given out (tickets) than when they are not there.

Conclusion: Thus, most of the thing (tickets) being given out is given out to the people (students) that are there when more is given out.

Flaw: Just because it happens when the people are there does not mean they are the ones getting the thing. Also more is not equal to most.

Answer choice E Analysis:

Premise: In a situations where more of a certain type of people (other children) are there more of something (snacks) is given out than usual.

Conclusion: Thus, most of the thing (snacks) being given out is given out to the people (others children) that are there when more is given out.

Flaw: Just because it happens when the people are there does not mean they are the ones getting the thing. Also more is not equal to most.

Thus the premises match up so do the conclusions and the flaws.

not all = some

I think an easy way of understanding it is the negation test.

Anyone is equivalent to all. Negation of all in logic is some. Now apply that to A and see of to kills the support of the stem.

I think the mistake you are making is in terms of not anchoring on the requirement of the question. The requirement is of something that has to be necessarily true meaning if not true completely breaks down the argument's support.

In A if they tried domesticating everything and found only certain could be, yeah it makes sure that all the ones left out today could not be domesticated or were not worth it. But if they did not do that our conclusion could still be true- that even if they did not try it with every animal the ones that are wild right now are not worthy of domestication or can't be domesticated.

While in the case of answer choice B if it is true that it is not much easier today to domesticate there is no change in potential for domestication. But more importantly if B is not true, ie, it is easier to domesticate animals now, then these animals can be domesticated now although they could not have been then which completely breaks down the stimulus' argument. And thus is necessary.

The analogy depends on the potential of domestication, if potential remains same then the analogy applies but if it changes then it does not.

A trick that really helped me here is the perspective that properly drawn means that the logic has to make the argument valid making the answer need a perfect logical conversion. Therefore any AC that has the word "usual" does not follow logically because it does not create complete validity. Is that fair?

Also another way it baits you to think is through a causal chain which would be,

adequate prenatal care -> lesser premature birth -> lesser under weight babies

But the fact of the matter is that even with the assumptions being true and you ending up at that conclusion it still is not the right answer as it at best does nothing and worse off strengthens the support while what we want is weakening.

It does the opposite of what the question asks of you so is not the right answer.

Assuming you chose b as your answer the simplest way to look at it would be that the question asks for an assumption and assumptions are things that are unsaid in the stimulus but implied or you make it mentally to connect the dot between premise and conclusion. Having said this, b is just a paraphrasing of what is said in the argument which in the best case scenario is just more info/details which needs further explanation thus would not strengthen the argument and in a more normal sense for me just does not constitute an assumption as it is already addressed.

Sure they'll be a diversity pool when you put together many individual shrimps but what we are trying to resolve is why their genetics are not homogeneous. Essentially if they interbreed we would not be able to tell if a shrimp is from coral reef 1 or 11 based on their genetic info. But in your case they are just multiple different types of shrimps in one place which is completely different.

In the range do lmk how to join

Yes I think so and this is why:

example:

All bald people are hairless and all bald people have experienced hair loss. If that is the case then have all hairless people experienced hair loss?

Lawgic:

Bald -> Hairless

Bald-> Hair loss

Therefore, Bald -> Hairless -> Hair loss

Which gives us, Hairless -> Hair loss

Now suppose the total number of bald people are 100 in that case what our conclusion means is all 100 people are hairless and have experienced hair loss.

As some has a lower limit of at least 1 of the hundred but no upper limit yes this does also imply, Hairless Hair loss

Makes sense, the way I have come to understand it but still get confused sometimes is that necessary conditions are 'a' required condition while the sufficiency condition guarantees the result we are talking about.

Essentially here,

Being 5+ minutes late is necessary for being cited but is not sufficient .

Thus,

Cited -> 5+, so Kumar is late by 5+ minutes which is necessary but not sufficient enough to get cited so he may or may not have been cited.

Does this make sense to you? I'm not trying to provide unsolicited explanation, asking to see if my understanding makes sense by seeing if you concur with it.

Thank you for explaining.

*it is

First off #feedback this needs to be a video, it complicatd while reading but way simpler if you hear it or say it out loud.

Anyway a simple way to look at it is:

1st frame work:

Step 1: Use rules until now to frame conditional relationship in Lawgic

Step 2: See if exception applies in the result you want

Step 3: If exception applies conditional from step 1 no longer applies, if not an exception conditional applies

2nd Frame work:

Step 1: Frame conditional in logic including the exceptional rule, which comes under the sufficient side of things

Step 2: Bring the sufficient condition in the middle to the left

We do this because being not being an exception plus the sufficient contain together forms the entirety make it sufficient for the condition to take place

Step 3: Check whether exception applies or not

Step 4: If not exception conditional in step two applies if exception it does not

3rd frame work:

Step 1: Kick up not having exception to domain

Step 2: Frame conditional as in step 1 of framework 1

Step 3: If not an exception you are under the domain so conditional applies if an exception you are not under the domain so rule does not apply

#feedback

Now I'm not sure if I'm understanding this wrong or if what I'm going to sight is right but-

Does the statement "only if they arrive more than five minutes late" imply that the necessary condition for a citation is arriving more than 5 minutes late?

Let me explain what I mean:

Do the words "more than" not make it a necessity to come 5 minutes late or more ( 5 minutes to infinity) the necessary condition for getting a citation?

What you are stating as the necessity condition would make sense if the clause read "only if they arrive five minutes late"

Does the addition of 'more than' not make coming 17 minutes late a trigger for the necessary condition?

So I think a particular way of looking at support from all that has been learnt until here would be to think:

In a world wherein the premise given how reasonable the assumptions are true the conclusion is likely to be true.

In a similar manner a strong argument becomes a set of claims wherein the claim that is the preface, given reasonable assumptions, supports another claim which is the conclusion.

Does this make sense?