Stated (Question Type)

Comparative/ Science (Frameworks)

Answer Chosen - D

Correct Answer - A

Why is D Wrong?

• Although passage B does mention it -- researchers thinking that the extra cell nuclei are killed by a cell death program, they are not including that to support the cause of muscle memory

Why is A correct?

• Direct support for this answer and we can see that in P2

  • muscle cells get even bigger by merging with stem cells that are nested between them

Solutions/ Takeaways

• CTRL-F

• every single right answer in RC is in the passage

• answers work for us we do not work for them

Strengthen (Powerful)

We need to find the most powerful answer that can rule out a possible objection or add plausibility to the argument being advanced in the stimulus

Answer Chosen - A

Correct Answer - C

Why is A wrong?

• Weak Impact.

• We do not know what type of impact the virus can have on the influence of the divergence of the species but there is no relevance to the fact that that the virus is 25myo

Why is C correct?

• Had to watch the video on this bc it was also just as confusing trying to understand the written explanation

• The diagram in the video provides a way to better understand why they have the SAME VIRUS even though they are different species

• it is because they share the same lineage that contracted the virus in the beginning and because the fragments are passed onto all of the decedents we can see that C is trying to rule out that possibility that if it were to be inserted at a specific spot in the lineage for example, then it could not be that it was passed down the lineage

Classic Flaw (Provable)

We need to find an answer that accurately describes how the author is messing up in their argument

in this case, we are dealing with an argument that is committing the classic Causation = Correlation flaw

Answer Chosen - C

Correct Answer - A

Why is C incorrect?

• C is descriptevly inaccurate

• The stimulus is not trying to advance the idea that that those who eat cereal contributes to anything, instead the author is trying to say that if you eat cereal then you are more likely to be physically fit since everyone else who eats cereal is physically fit

Why is A correct?

• this is descriptively accurate

• we can see that the author is trying to say that you are more like to be X since everyone else is doing Y and everyone else who is doing Y is also X

• what if it was another way around? what if B caused both X and Y. We do not know and the author is concluding to quickly on the basis of their assumption

Solutions/ Takeaways

• Rushing - stop doing that

• understand the stimulus let it sit with you and allow it to marinate in your brain enough to fully grasp whats wrong with it

NA (Provable)

We need to find an answer that if negated, will allow us to weaken the argument

or, we need to find the missing link in the argument

remember if the conclusion is true, the na must be true

Answer Chosen - D

Correct Answer - B

Why is D incorrect?

• It does not matter whether other studies take into consideration the differences between x and of y

• we are solely focused on what is going on in the study

Why is B correct?

• If we negated B, we would hurt the argument and therefore it is the right answer

• if AF and LE were to not be unhealthy then this goes completely against what the author is trying to advance in their claim (that it is unhealthy)

Solutions/ Takeaways?

• We need to stay within the bounds of the stimulus and not stray away from it

• even if it means that we spend more time on the question, the accuracy is really what matters on the section

SA (Powerful)

We need to find the most powerful answer that links the premises to the conclusion, rendering the argument 100% valid.

Answer Chosen - C

Correct Answer - A

Why is C incorrect?

• we don’t have a premise establishing that there will be a significant increase in demand for workers.

• Instead, it is just stating that the businesses will retain more of their earnings and employ more workers

Why is A correct?

• We can see that there are two triggers being established as stated in the stimulus: If, on the other hand

• A uses the term either which establishes that at least one of the triggers need to be met in order for unemployment to decrease

Solutions/ Takeaways

• Really need to read the cues here. this is early on in the section and we can not overlook the wording that is embedded in the stimulus

NA (Provable)

We need to choose an answer that if negated will weaken the argument

remember, if the conclusion is true then the NA must be true

Answer Chosen - B

Correct Answer - A

Why not B?

• Exactly - Too strong

• we can not infer that the scientists in the survey are exactly the same ones who accept Wang's law

• We see that in the premises the terms almost all is used - not all, and so therefore we can conclude that there could still be some that are left out of this category

Why is A correct?

• A if negated touches on the scientists that were surveyed and how they are generally UNaware that the results of the BEE w/ WL contradict the MH

Solutions/ Takeaways

• Be wary of wording that creates a v. strong inference - we need to be more welcoming to softer language

• I actually did not like A because of the word generally - made me feel like it was too strong

Flaw (Provable)

We need to find an answer that accurately describes how the author overlooked our answer in service of their argument

Answer chosen - C

Correct Answer - D

Why not C?

• Although fruits and veggies were mentioned in the beginning of the argument, they are not used to indicate how the author reaches their conclusion

Why is it D?

• The author over looks the possibility of still being able to attract bees without the use of a hive

• I did not choose this answer because it felt as though it was the necessary condition in order for pollination to actually happen (be excellent)

Flaw (Provable)

We need to find an answer that accurately describes how the author messed up in service of their argument

Answer Chosen - D

Correct Answer - A

Why not D?

• D. is not what the author overlooked in service of their argument

• in fact, the author does acknowledge that the two analogies are similar

Why is it A?

• The author does in fact overlook this possibility

• what if --> some of the parts within the body play a more critical role and therefore can effectively destroy everything?

Weaken (Powerful)

We need to weaken the argument in the most powerful way possible, by either providing an AE or hurting the plausibility of the argument

Answer Chosen - B

Correct Answer - D

Why D?

• D. allows us to weaken the the conclusion the author is reaching because the consumers wont know if they are getting the old stuff or new stuff --> therefore, they may have a reason to object to this

B is wrong.

• B. actually strengthen the argument it feels like

• It allows for the consumer to actually be able to tell whether they are getting the old stuff or new stuff so the conclusion of the author would still stand

Weaken (Powerful)

We need to find an answer that will weaken the argument in the most powerful way possible through an AE or by hurting the plausibility of the argument

Answer Chosen - A

Correct Answer - A

Why A?

• The author is concluding from the survey, that drivers feel more possessive of their parking spaces when they leave them and that because of this possessiveness, there is a increase in their reactions if someone else wants the space

• The best way to weaken the survey would be by providing an AE for the reactions that arise from the drivers

• It not that they feel more possessive, it is simply because they feel more pressure that they start to have a negative reaction

C. was another contender, but it is wrong because it does not provide the impact we need to weaken the argument effectively

• we do not really care about how difficult it is for the driver/ time consuming it is for them

• we need to find a way to alternatively explain why drivers are reacting the way they do

Author’s attitude/ Implied (Question Type)

Comparative/ Law (Frameworks)

Answer Chosen - E

Correct Answer - C

Why is it not E?

• We can not support E

• we do not know whether or not the author is skeptical of anything because they are not really advocating for any view whatsoever

Why is C correct?

• The author in B is more detached in the fact that it does not necessarily advocate for a view whereas passage A does in fact so (View that brain is sole cause of behavior has implications for law)

Stated (Question Type)

Comparative/ Science (Frameworks)

Answer Chosen - D

Correct Answer - B

Why not D?

• we do not have any support for D

• we do not know how much tooth wear was found in the population within Passage A

Why is B correct?

• We have direct support for B

  • Passage B speaks on The diet of Ban Chiang's inhabitants included some cultivated rice, whereas, Passage A does not

Am finding that reading one passage instead of both really is not as efficient. Am also hearing that the 2 passage phenomenon is not happening any more on LSAT so atp just going to read both passages

Author’s attitude/ Implied (Question Type)

Critique or debate/ Law/ Problem-analysis (Frameworks)

Answer Chosen - E

Correct Answer - B

Why not E?

• E. does not accurately describe how the author feels towards 18th century lawyers. They do not have mixed feelings about it. They have a negative feeling towards it

Why is it B?

• B. accurately describes how the author feels towards these lawyers. He is being critical of them

  • The author is critical of them because they stood in the way of reform.

Solutions/ Takeaways

• Familiarize with terms

• did not know that ambivalence in LSAT terms means to have mixed feelings

• answers work for you, you do not work for them

MC (Provable)

We need to find an answer that reiterates the main conclusion/ point of the facts stated in the stimulus

Answer Chosen - E

Correct Answer - C

Why is C correct?

• heartburn-medication advertisements imply that unrelieved heartburn is likely to cause esophageal cancer. This is simply false

• When we look at C. we can see that there are boatloads of similarities and should be choosing this without a problem

Why is E incorrect?

• We do not know whether or not it will only affect a few of the people who see these advertisements, only that those w the specific condition will be affected by this phenomenon

• just need to slow down and read with more intent tbh MC is not usually a problem for me but this a clear indicator of just not slowing down

Principle-Strengthen (Powerful)

We need to find an answer that establishes the premise (principle) to the conclusion in the strongest way possible

Answer Chosen - C

Correct Answer - A

Why is A correct?

• A establishes the link we needed from premise to conclusion

• It establishes why the severity of the punishment

  • the more severe the punishment, the more evidence we need to conclude that the repair shop is responsible of polluting the river

Why not C?

• No link being established

• we do not know how much harm was caused by the pollution so we can not base the penalty that we impose on the offender from the harm the action causes

Strengthen (Powerful)

We need to find the most powerful answer that strengthens the argument being advanced in the stimulus

In this instance, we are looking to either provide plausibility to the authors remarks or we are trying to alleviate a possible alternative explanation

Answer Chosen - C

Correct Answer - E

Why is E Correct?

• E. provides more support for the contention that it is not based on the vehicle itself but rather the drivers that make the minivan safer

• How? --> Well, minivans are known to have the worst braking and emergency handling capabilities than other vehicles of similar size.

• This answer effectively leaves out the possibility that it could be that the minivan itself is the reason why it is safer to drive. It is instead, because of the drivers operating them

Why is C wrong?

• Wrong Impact/ Going the wrong way

• we do not care whether or not more passengers are being carried in a minivan as opposed to other cars

• While it provides some support (ie. the more safer a vehicle is, the more passengers riding atm), it does not provide the support we need to establish that it is because of the operators of the minivan that it is considered safer as opposed to other vehicles

Classic Flaw (Provable)

We need to find an answer that accurately describes how the author is fucking up through the classic flaws

part v. whole flaw

Answer Chosen - C

Correct Answer - B

Why is it not C?

• The author is not really denying this possibility because there could be other components to astrology. the author is primarily concerned with the fact that it is an art and a science

Why is B correct?

• B is descriptively accurate

• if we look closely at the stimulus the author concludes that A is both art and science. then proceeds to talk about how components (some parts of) of astrology are scientific-related

• this is wrong

• feels like the author is making part v. whole flaw here

Loophole Flaw (Provable)

We need to find an answer that accurately describes how the author messed up in service of their argument

Answer Chosen - A

Correct Answer - D

Why not A?

• This is not descriptively accurate

• The author is not basing a conclusion on the small amount of samples that were tested by the lab. In fact the lab could make that judgement reasonably speaking because they were given those items. the flaw actually starts at the beginning of the chain when the supplier whom provided the 20 samples picked those specific samples

Why is D correct?

• This is exactly what is happening in the stimulus

• the author over looks the fact that the person who chose those items could have purposely chosen them because they knew they would be defective

Solutions/ Takeaways

• We need to look for the answer that accurately describes how the author is fucking up

• we need to stay within whats relevant

• answers work for us we do not work for them !!

Loophole Flaw (Provable)

We need to find an answer that accurately describes & outlines the author's flawed method of reasoning

Answer Chosen - D

Correct Answer - E

Why not D?

• It is not descriptively accurate

• The author is not confusing that one thing causes another. It is not a correlation does equal causation

Why is E correct?

• it is descriptively accurate

• The author is stating that the new finding of species indicates that the pollution did not eliminate the species. This is wrong because we can still assume that the pollution is still in fact killing the species even though they found new other species that were known previously

MSS (Provable)

We need to find an answer that we can most strongly support given the information in the stimulus

Answer Chosen - A

Correct Answer - D

Why not A?

• We can not support this answer based on the facts in the stimulus

• we can not determine WHICH measures in particular are least expensive. moreover, we can not prove that the city should be adopting the cheapest measures available. This is because all we know is that there are two options and one of them would be cheaper than the other

Why D?

• D. allows us to draw an inference based on the information in the passage.

• The reason why I did not choose it was because it felt like it was actually just repeating a premise from the facts, but in reality, we just need to adjust how we are reading these facts as a whole.

• The conclusion is in the first sentence where the author is stating that IF we do X, then Y will happen. Therefore it is reasonable for us to adopt X (is what D.) is saying)

Solutions/ Takeaways

• Avoid answers that go away from the bounds of the stimulus stick to the facts !

• if we can not prove an answer, then we need to move on from it

MSS (Provable)

We need to find an answer that we can strongly support from the stimulus

Answer Chosen - B

Correct Answer - A

Why not B?

• We can not support B. based on the information provided in the stimulus

• We can not infer that SG play a significant role in the scope of news media/ programming nor can we infer that they effectively prevent news media from achieving their purpose

Why is A correct?

• We are aware that the purpose of journalism is to inform people about matters relevant to the choices they must make

  • we can take this as a conditional statement imo

• That being said, if there are things included within news programs/ newspapers that are outside the scope of the intended purpose of journalism is, then we can reasonably infer that sometimes there are things such as SG that are included for non journalistic reasons

• there is nice, soft-wording involved so the answer is v mich attractive as well

Paradox (Powerful)

We need to find an answer powerful enough to explain the discrepancy found within the stimulus

Answer Chosen - E

Correct Answer - C

Why not E?

• Too weak

• If C did not exist, this could have been the best answer but because it uses the word some, we can determine that it is wrong since there is still room for possibility that some services can in fact be produced in other countries. It just simply is not strong enough to explain the discrep.

Why is C correct?

• C. is correct because it is providing us with an alternative explanation to explain for the discrepancy in the stimulus.

• Because services are delivered in person, markets for services are local --> therefore, the country in question would be less likely to engage in international trade

Solution/ Takeaways

• sometimes the most boring answers will be the correct ones haha

• C. feels like something that would be said by a 9 year old for some reason but in reality it is just a straight forward way of explaining the discrepancy

Purpose of paragraph/ Structure (Question Type)

Critique or debate/ Science/ Spotlight (Frameworks)

Answer Chosen - D

Correct Answer - C

We need to find an answer that will best describe the role/purpose of the paragraph in question is

Why not D?

• We have no support to prove that this is the purpose of the paragraph

• Although the wampum was included in the paragraph, we do not actually get any kind of information that contends what was happening or outlining the actual constitution

• & since it was only included in such a small part of the paragraph, it would be a dubious assumption to make that this is the overall purpose of the paragraph

Why C?

• We have support for C

• really at its core, the entire passage is trying to talk about the stages of what/ how the wampum was used

• so P3 would effectively be what the wampum was being used for at its later stages of development which in turn began to be used for sociopolitical messages

Solutions./ Takeaways

• We need to be able to look at the answer and determine that it effectively proves the purpose of the paragraph in question

• avoid answers that focus too much on a portion of that paragraph because it could be the case that it does not actually paint the whole picture of what the paragraph is doing

Question Stem Tags/ Author’s perspective/ Implied (Question Type)

Critique or debate/ Law/ Problem-analysis (Frameworks)

Answer Chosen - D

Correct Answer - C

We need to find an answer that we can most strongly support based on the information from the passage

Why not D?

• We can not support this answer

• there is no evidence from the passage that states whether the author would have an opinion on the funding of researchers within academic institutions

Why C?

• C. can be proven in P3.

• We can see that the author is explicitly talking about the associated costs of patent litigation --> so we can infer that they would agree on this

• we have the support from the passage

Solutions/ Takeaways

• We need to be careful with these type of questions because it is trying to trick us into making a dubious inference outside of the scope of what is being said in the passage

• we need to stick to the passage and not go out of bounds

• answers work for us we do not work for them

• if we can not prove something, move on

Except/ Stated (Question Type)

Art/ Single position/ Spotlight (Frameworks)

Answer Chosen - E

Correct Answer - A

Why is E Wrong?

• E. is supported in P3

• We can see the author explicitly state that BOTH B & S stirred controversy because of the way they altered the language and extended the range of music

Why is A correct?

• We can see that the author is stating that S's music began in the late romantic manner, but we do not see that B's worked started then

Solutions/ Takeaways

• Read with intent

• if we see that an answer can be supported, move on

• answers work me, i do not work for them