Hi 7Sage! I was wondering when law schools announced their application open dates and whether these dates remain fairly constant year to year. The 7sage admissions timeline states that many applications open early-October but I'm seeing that some applications opened as early as September 1st for the 2020 Cycle.
Any input would be welcome as I'm trying to plan out a schedule to submit my application as early as possible.
Thanks!
Weakening question.
Argument: 3 billion years ago, Sun was less luminous which results in frozen oceans, but evidence shows that oceans were filled with water. To answer the paradox, we are told that
P: there was enough heat for oceans to not freeze→the level of greenhouse gases would have to be higher.
C: Therefore, the level of carbon dioxide was significantly higher than it is today
Under time, I didn't notice the "dangling variable" or how the premise is about greenhouse gases and the conclusion is about carbon dioxide. Instead I focused on the modifier "significantly" higher which didn't help me get to an answer.
B: If there is less methane in Earth's atmosphere today than 3 billion years ago, we know that if the oceans did not freeze, then there was a higher level of greenhouse gases-methane. This would weaken the conclusion by substituting methane for carbon dioxide. This does not completely wreck the argument (in that we don't know if greater methane means less carbon dioxide or if there was more methane than carbon dioxide or if there was enough methane to keep the oceans from freezing). However, we are now given an alternative, possible explanation which weakens the conclusion.
C: I chose this, even with the modifier (not enough to alter their freezing points significantly), thinking that if it did alter it somewhat, then the level of carbon dioxide would not have to be significantly higher. However, this is a weak connection and does not do enough to cast doubt on the conclusion that the level of carbon dioxide was significantly higher. Additionally, it does not attack the reasoning of the argument.
Takeaway: when the AC doesn't REALLY fit, and I have to come up with rationale, look back at the stimulus. Also, be clear on what is the context v. premise v. conclusion of the stimulus
The problem with AC A:
This seems to be bridging the idea between what ought to do and what someone promises to do. However, we quickly see that the conditional does not trigger.
If a person failed to do something she or he ought to have done → that person failed to do something that he or she promised to do.
However, in the premise, we just know that we are concerned with one ought to do, not when they fail to do so.
Looking at the contrapositive: if someone did not fail to keep a promise → they did not fail to do something they ought to have done. Once again, this conditional does not even trigger because all we know about is that someone failed to keep a promise.
A conditional that I believe may have been a necessary assumption would have been if one makes a promise →that person ought to do something. The negation: if one makes a promise, → that person has no obligation to keep it, this would "ruin" the argument.
I don't believe so.
Even if we take out the word generally and the conclusion is that used cars that are less than ten years old is easier to sell than cars ten years older, the negation of A does not destroy the argument. If we negate A, we are saying that the salability of something is influenced by factors other than the level of demand. But to be influenced or to influence something is a very vague term and we don't know to what extent. In fact, other factors probably affect salability other than demand. Without knowing the extent of the influence (we cannot assume that this influence will perceptibly eliminate the effect of the demand), we cannot say that the negation destroys the argument.
Adding "possibly easier" or even "probably easier", would be introducing a modifier that is similar to generally. The words "possibly" and "probably", cushion the strength of the conclusion (as does the word generally), but allowing the author of the argument to hide behind the fact that the conclusion does not have to be true EVERY single time.
For example: if I say, I will probably donate money to charity-this means that there is a chance that I will, but if I don't, no one can hold it against me.
14. Author's purpose
In the third paragraph, the author is talks about mimetic vertigo and how the dance attracted a wide audience because during that time, "an art form had to be capable of being many things in order to appeal to a large audience". The cultural and socioeconomic flux is therefore described to show how the state of the economy led to the cakewalk's success.
A: "only in", makes the answer choice too strong. We only know that because of the culture/economic setting of that time, the cakewalk was able to appeal to a large audience and therefore succeed. But for all we know, the cakewalk could have become popular in simple social circumstances as well.
B: when we defining author's purpose of a phrase it is important to keep it in the context of the paragraph/argument being made in that paragraph. In the third paragraph, there is no mention of the fusion of African and European dance forms.
C: this AC is tricky to understand, it is basically saying that the author is describing the socioeconomic flux as a target of the overlapping parodic layers (that characterized the cakewalk). In other words, all the parodic layers were targeting the socioeconomic flux. Although we know that each parodic layer did target/appeal to a different socioeconomic group, it is wrong to say that these parodies were specifically targeting the "flux" or even that the parodies were "targeting" anything at all.
D: looking at the third paragraph, we know that mimetic vertigo enabled wide audience (35) and that art had to be many things to many people to appeal to a large audience (or be successful) (43). The cakewalk embodied mimetic vertigo which enabled a wide audience. The author then explains the context for that period (socioeconomic flux, many different audiences), and that setting allowed the cakewalk to appeal to a large audience. The difference between A and D, is that A is too strong in saying that the cakewalk would have become popular in the complex social circumstances to the exclusion of other circumstances. D shows how the author wanted to show how the cultural environment was favorable for the success.
E: this AC is very specific (European American parodies) and how these were able to reach wide audiences. We know from paragraph 2 that European American parodies reached European American audiences. We don't know if it also reached many other audiences AND this information is in a completely different paragraph than the one "socioeconomic flux" is mentioned
Takeaway: sometimes the AC will not completely match my prediction for the answer. In that case, the prephase I have must be wrong/not inclusive of some detail. Rather than trying to force an AC to work, go back to the passage, look at the context and eliminate.
18. Inference
Walker's significance in the history of the cakewalk are highlighted in paragraph one and explained in detail in paragraph 2. We know she popularized the dance and that she was able to help it cross boundaries by varying the dance to appeal to different audiences.
A: Broadening the appeal of the cakewalk is a nice, provable way to start of the AC, and saying it was by highlighting elements that were already present in the dance is supported by the text. For middle-class African Americans, we know that Walker refined the cakewalk and emphasized its fundamental grace. To refine and emphasize something is working with the original. For the European Americans, she distilled from the authentic, once again highlighting elements already present. In both these answers, Walker did not add new elements, she did not create parodies, she simply tweaked what was there.
C: We know that Walker "popularized a dance... through her choreographing" from the first paragraph. We also know that she brought about different interpretations that were tailored to the interests of a different cultural group. I liked this AC before realizing it was too strong in its phrase, "choreographing various alternative interpretations of it". We know that Walker was able to address within her "interpretation" of the cakewalk, the conflicting demands, but there is no reason to believe that therefore she had many interpretations. Even if Walker was able to refine and emphasize for African Americans, distill the authenticity and retain grand flourishes, this could have been accomplished in one interpretation. AC C requires an assumption that Walker choreographed created various different interpretations each suited for a different group
Takeaway: Looking back, it is clear that Walker did just tweak and work with existing elements, but I wasn't able to see that under time. I knew that Walker had made different changes for different audiences, and A didn't seem to fit my prephase immediately. Once again, better to rely on the passage then just a prephase.
In this case, I believe C is a NA because if we negate the AC: it is impossible to determine whether Selena has psychic powers, then the argument completely falls apart. If we can't determine whether Selena has psychic powers, then the sufficient can never trigger because we cannot find out whether Selena's claim that she has psychic powers is true or not. In other words, in order to test if a claim is true or not, it must be possible to determine whether Selena has psychic powers.
Using your example, your dragon example, an analogous argument would be: Sarah claims there are dragons. If we find out whether there are dragons, then we will determine whether it is possible for this world to sustain dragons. We would definitely need the fact that "it is possible to determine whether dragons exist".
You are right in that you don't need the statement from AC C to trigger the conditional, but without the statement in AC C, the world in which the conditional is taking place would not exist.
For NA, think of it as (argument)→(NA). In this case, if we negate the NA, then the argument falls apart.
10. Application
The key point in this question is determining what "the author" would be most likely to endorse. In this case, we know that the author does not think that incorporating a detection ratio is viable (it would bankrupt companies and put people out of work)
C: The last sentence of the passage states another criterion (such as the assignment of moral weight), is necessary so that the penalties are practical as well as just. We know that a community's opinion of the crime is reflected in assignments of moral weights. Additionally, we know that the author does not endorse putting businesses and employees out of business. In fact, that is the very reason the author suggests finding another way.
D: This is what is mentioned in paragraph two, raising the fine from $6Mil to $60Mil, but we don't know if the OPA was to raise the fine by tenfold or if there is some other equation being considered. The main reason this AC is wrong is because the author is not advocating for incorporating the detection rate especially in instances when it would bankrupt the company/make lots of people unemployed.
Takeaway: Always separate and have in mind AA and OPA
11. Recognition
We know that OPA-morals should not be factored in on morality and that penalties should outweigh the crime
I was stuck between D and E. Both mention that OPA do not find community's moral judgment to be irrelevant/inappropriate
D: Chose this under timed and BR. However, reading this AC carefully, it is saying that a community's moral judgment is irrelevant to assessing the morality of corporations that commit the crimes. Although the other economists argue that what the community finds morally "should not be a factor in determining penalties", we don't know anything about their views on how the morality of corporations are assessed. I thought this was the correct answer because I thought if something is irrelevant to an assessment, that it is not a factor but even under that interpretation the answer is wrong because we don't know what the economist's think about assessing the morality of corporations.
E: I eliminated this AC because I thought "inappropriate" was too strong. When comparing D to E, I thought the only difference between the two AC was the words "irrelevant" and "inappropriate". However, the main difference is that D is talking about assessing morality of corporations and E is talking about determining penalties. And we know for a fact that other economists believe that moral judgments should not be factored in to determining penalties, not assessing morality.
Takeaway: Careful reading of the AC (read to the end of each AC... CAREFULLY)
13. Inference
I was stuck between A and B
A: I ended up eliminating A because there was no direct textual evidence and the use of the word "should" worried me. However, from lines 5-6, we know that these economist's believe that the sole basis for determining the penalty should be the reckoning of cost and benefit. In other words, no other factors should be considered or a factor in determining the penalty.
B: The reason this question is wrong is similar to the reason why D of question 11 is wrong. We know that these economists do not believe that the community's moral judgment should be a factor in determining the penalty of the crime, but we do not know what the economist's opinions are of assigning a moral weight. In fact, we don't know what these economist's think about moral weight. As long as the moral weight does not affect/influence the penalty, then these economist's are fine.
Takeaway: if an answer is remotely wrong (not strictly adhering to the passage), eliminate. For inference questions, the AC does not have to be explicitly stated, but straying from what is explicitly stated will make the AC wrong.
4. Author's Purpose
When asked the purpose of a particular phrase, it is important to ask, "why did the author include this".
A: This AC is not factually "incorrect", the Harlem Renaissance is an example of African American artistic movement that preceded the founding of the Negro Units. The only (possible) issue I can find with this AC is perhaps the modifier "successful", we can only infer/assume that "a period of intense creativity and innovation within the AA arts community" means that period was successful, but we can't know for sure. The reason why this AC is wrong is because it explains the what the Harlem Renaissance was, but it does not specify the purpose of including this information.
D: I can't remember why I eliminated under time, but during BR, when I read the sentence following the mention of Harlem Renaissance, D became very clearly correct. The sentence after states, "thus, by the time FTP was founded, a diverse body of thought... already existed". In other words, because the Harlem Renaissance was a period of intense creativity and innovation, it laid the groundwork for a diverse body of thought concerning the social function of art. This is the context for the important artistic debates within the Negro Units.
Takeaway: For Author's Purpose questions, pause and ask, "why did the author include this". It is not enough to simply describe what the phrase is doing, but why.
14. Inference
After reading the question stem, I immediately thought, the author does not agree with this statement and then jumped into the questions. Instead, looking back at the stimulus, the hypothesis we are asked to consider is the hypothesis mentioned in paragraph two and addressed by the author in paragraph three. The first consideration the author makes is the contrast between civil courts and canon courts. If I had taken the time to take a step back, go back and refresh exactly what the author says (instead of just remembering the author didn't agree), would have saved me a lot of time.
A: Obtained from the ecclesiastical courts. In regards to records, I remember from the first paragraph that there were only "few recorded episodes of disciplinary enforcement's" and that the fourth paragraph said that medieval church records were extraordinarily rich. Neither of these mentions of records support AC A.
B: Immediately eliminated after reading modern society. The author never mentions modern society.
C: Under time, I thought this was wrong because I asked, "what similar area?". (This is where I realize I should have looked back at what the author said about a certain hypothesis). In this case, the author is talking about civil courts. In fact, the entirety of paragraph three is talking about how it is unlikely that that canon court lawyers were scrupulous because civil courts have more examples of disciplinary actions and that the correct inference from this observation is that disciplinary mechanisms functioned more efficiently. I have no idea why my brain didn't connect "similar area" between civil and cannon courts, but AC C makes much more sense making that connection
D: I chose D under time because I knew that there wasn't a lot of records/documents. However this is a fact mentioned in paragraph 1, before the hypothesis is mentioned. And a lack of documents is never mentioned as a reason for rejecting the hypothesis. Furthermore, the idea that there as a dearth of civil and ecclesiastical documents if factually incorrect. Civil courts had lots of records. Also, we know the author doesn't think it is impossible assess. In fact, the author has a very well formulated argument/opinion about it.
Takeaway: After eliminating all answers, sometimes, I need to go back to the passage, find where the question stimulus is referring to, and what the author has to say in relation to this portion before going back to the ACs.
24. Inference
This question was tricky because I had trouble parsing out the second paragraph and what the misconceptions were v. what we know about the atomic structure of glass.
A: I chose A timed and during BR because of the last sentence of the second paragraph which states that at a certain temp range, molten glass (which I assumed to be liquid glass), retains an amorphous atomic structure but still has properties of a solid. Therefore, I thought the idea that the glass could behave as a liquid (molten glass) even though it has solid properties (takes on the physical properties of a solid), was supported. However, what the sentence is actually saying is that when molten glass is cooled below the lower end of the range, the atomic structure remains amorphous (which I now know does not mean liquidy, but means without pattern/structure), even though it has physical properties of a solid. Therefore, even if I say that the atomic structure still is similar to liquid glass, I have no idea whether it behaves as a liquid.
C: This is wrong because pulling from the same sentence as A, we only know when it is below the lower end and this AC is saying when it has reached glass transition temperature
D: We know that "under the force of gravity, certain solid materials including glass can, in fact flow". This gives evidence that the glass is flowing downward under its own weight. We also know that during glass transition temperature, the glass can become more liquid (even when it's heated at 350 degrees). Therefore, as long as it's hot enough, it will flow, due to gravity. I didn't like this AC because it seemed like the passage wanted to go against this idea. But the idea that glass will flow is valid and true. Just not in the context of these churches that were never THAT hot.
Takeaway: Don't focus too hard on a specific mention/sentence and try to make ACs work. Focus on what the sentence is saying, if it doesn't tightly match (aka liquid properties and atomic structures), move on and be willing to choose the AC that the author disproves of in context of something else but is still generally true.
20. Application
Picked the wrong AC (D), during timed and BR because I missed an important qualifier in the question stem. What would make the suggestion in passage A compatible with the Kantian argument laid out in the first paragraph.
What we know about the argument in the first paragraph is that it depends on the rationality of the actor. To act rationally, we have to act as one would have others act towards oneself and to do so is to treat that person as a rational human being. In other words, when we lie to a pathological liar, we are treating them as a rational human being.
Or: if we act towards a person as that person has acted towards others→we treat that person as a rational human being
In the context of passage A: if we lie to a pathological liar→we treat that pathological liar as a rational human being.
The stimulus is asking us to make it so that we don't lie to a pathological liar (by saying that being a pathological liar is not sufficient to lie to him). In order to do that by way of the Kantian argument, we just need to negate the necessary (or say that the pathological liar is not a rational human being).
B: If rationality cannot be attributed to pathological behavior, then we cannot treat a pathological liar as a rational human being. Therefore, being a pathological liar is not sufficient reason for people to lie to them.
D: If the stimulus had asked, "compatible with the argument the author gives in Passage B regarding rights and duties", then it would be correct.
Takeaway: read the question stimulus carefully....
8. Recognition
I knew that a weakness in current rules is that the system is based on appearances and that there is vague guidance. Because the first and second paragraphs both talked about "appearances", I was hunting for the AC that mentioned appearance without taking into consideration what was being said by the ACs.
B: The textual support comes from line 15 "without giving any idea of whose perspective to take or how to interpret the facts". In other words, we don't know whose perspective (judge, plaintiff, defendant, etc.) to take which provides vague guidance.
E: The author states that a problem/weakness is not that it ignores, but that the system is based on appearance. The author states that this system tries to avoid appearances of impropriety which means that the rules are too dependent on it and therefore, definitely not ignoring it.
Takeaway: Sometimes, it's good to have an idea in mind and hunt, but if the AC says the opposite of what you want, take time to back to the passage and see what else the author had to say. It's easy to forget the details, remember what paragraph had the relevant information, skim. And then go through AC. Don't force an AC to fit.
14. Inference
I knew for certain that the author did not consider the current approach to have good effects (specifically that bias is sometimes overlooked).
Between C and E.
C: I knew the second part was accurate, that they are allowed to sit on many (which is the same as some), cases even though they are biased because the last sentence of the second paragraph talks about cases of false negatives. However, I was unsure as to what the author talked about instances of when judges are not biased. I thought I couldn't make the inferences or jumps about that case, and in so doing, I made the inference that therefore, judges are rarely removed when they are not actually biased.
E: the use of the words "sometimes", is perfect because it encompasses from rarely to always (the beauty of some). Therefore, the claim that judges are sometimes removed even when they are not biased is compatible with the fact that the author never explicitly mentions it. All we know is that (1) the author believes that the system is based on appearances and that therefore,
mistakes are made. (2) The author never says that when there is no bias, people are never removed. Therefore, the some is justified.
Takeaway: my reasoning was right, because nothing is explicitly mentioned means that I cannot make jumps. However, my method was incorrect. Not making inferences does not mean suddenly saying it doesn't happen or making assertions. Also, for inference questions, we can safely assume, that mistakes are made in both cases even if the author emphasizes one aspect. Especially if the inference is very weak (as in the use of the word "some")
1. Summarize/Main Point
We know that the passage talks about a faction within the debate of video technology of indigenous cultures and a study supporting one side.
I chose C timed and E during BR.
C: Very general, talks about the impact of video technology (the passage talks about the widespread use due to technology being cheaper). Introduces there is "some evidence", some could indicate the fieldwork done with the Kayapo people. This one was factually accurate, but it also seemed very general and because this was a different type of question (summarize rather than main point), I was worried that the fact this AC was general would make it not right. However, this is the wrong reasoning when choosing an answer choice. Instead of focusing on the differences between C and E based on their level of "generality", I should have focused on what they were saying.
E: Specifically mentions the example of the Kayapo people and their use of video technology which "lends credence" to Ginsburg's position. I think the main problem with my interpretation of the word "validate", was that I thought it does check and somewhat prove Ginsburg's position. However, this is one anthropologist within the faction, and we only know the argument in relation to the case of the Kayapo people. In other words, this one example does SUPPORT Ginsburg's position, but it does not PROVE her argument nor the argument of all those within that faction.
Takeaway: instead of focusing on the language, focus on the key difference. Some evidence v. validate. If anything, Kayapo videotapes lends credence only to one person's argument, to generalize that to the entire faction is wrong.
11. Flaw
Cookie cutter flaw, just an objection is groundless doesn't mean that whatever the objection was against should proceed. What if the other costs outweigh the benefits? What if there are other uses or reasons to not proceed with the trail?
A: Addresses the flaw exactly, the subconclusion is that the objection is groundless (which is supported by the fact that most hikers will have great concern for the environment). However, just because the objection has no weight, this doesn't meant what it is objecting to (that it should be turned into a trail), should suddenly be accepted
B: To map this out to the referential language, this would say that it illicitly infers that because each member of a set (each member of dedicated hikers?) has a certain property (concern for the environment), that the the set itself (most trail users???) will have that property (concern for the environment). In this case, the set can't be trail users because we know only about a characteristic that most of trail users will have. Therefore, this AC must be talking about dedicated hikers and the argument is not inferring this at all. In fact, the argument qualifies that dedicated hikers have great concern. That is not the flaw
C: Not circular reasoning, we have a premise that is different from the conclusion
D: "few users", we know that "most trail users" will be dedicated. Therefore, we already know about majority of users of the trail.
E: does not attack citizens, attacks their objections
Takeaway: I got caught up with the concern for the environment doesn't necessarily mean that they won't litter. Also with the idea that just because most will not litter, doesn't mean that those who don't will litter a lot. But before attacking the premises, I should have seen the entire argument. The main conclusion, to enact a hiking trail, is just not supported by the fact that the objection is groundless.
25: RRE
I think it was sort of hard identifying the discrepancy of this question. We're basically told that birds and snakes hiss when they feel threatened and that it is likely that they had a common ancestor that also hissed. Then we're told, that at the time that this common ancestor lived, the predators would not have had the anatomy required to hear hissing.
I focused on the words "similar enough that it is likely that this behavior developed in an early common ancestor" and thought that the discrepancy was ancestor or no ancestor? I didn't realize that the first two sentences are just context and that the discrepancy was really in that last sentence.
Why did this common ancestor have the ability to hiss when it wouldn't have been necessary?
A: This is cool, but how does the ancestor not being able to hear their own hissing explain anything? (Including my wrong discrepancy)
B: This seems to explain the idea that, although predators couldn't hear them hiss, this ancestor had other mechanisms to survive. Perhaps it hissed and also danced around to scare of predators. However, it doesn't explain why this common ancestor was able to hiss. Why have this trait that is basically useless? It sounds like a waste of energy to both hiss and dance around especially if the predator can't hear the hissing.
C: This answer provides a reason for why the ancestor would have hissed even if the predator couldn't hear. If the hissing mechanism cause the body size to increase, then we know that although the hissing itself is not a threat device, at least hissing allows the animal to look bigger and therefore scare of predators. That means that this mechanism was useful for this common ancestor and was therefore, probably passed down.
D: Yea, it can be less energetically costly, but the ancestor would have died. That's like saying, it's less energetically costly to not yell for help, but we do it because the reason for a threat device to is to protect an organism...
E: Even if they had a few (which could still mean hundreds), how does that explain why these ancestors hissed.
Takeaway: Especially for RRE questions, look at what needs to be explained. Obviously, the lsat writer doesn't want me to explain why snakes and birds have a common ancestor. They want me to explain why this ancestor was able to hiss when it wasn't necessary.
15. RRE
The point of difference we are trying to explain is why two groups (split among those who have control over their work, and those who have less), who do similar amounts of typing, have different risks in developing CTS.
Loophole: what if there is a key difference between groups that leads to this difference.
A: This answer choice is attractive if I didn't thoroughly read the stimulus and see that the study controls exactly for the amount of typing. "A recent study of office workers found that, amount those who do similar amounts of typing". In fact the study results are weird because both groups do the same amounts of typing. AC A is wrong because instead of pointing out the discrepancy, it tries to say that some part of this study is not true?
B: AC B basically touches on the loophole. In other words, we know that the difference between the two groups is that one feels like they have more control over their own work. If the other group feels like they don't have control, and if feeling as such puts one under emotional stress that makes them susceptible to nerve disorders, then it makes sense why people who reported themselves as not having control over their work also had a higher risk of developing CTS
C: This would affect both groups and if anything, is just explaining the premise or how CTS happens.
D: Rate of CTS and the risk are different topics. Also, we are not concerned with only those who rarely use keyboards. In fact, we don't know what group we're concerned with (those who do a lot of typing, medium amount, or a lot). We just need for the two groups to do similar amounts of typing. Also, this answer choice does not give us a why for these different risks.
E: If anything, this would weaken the support because it is saying that those workers who feel they have more control do more repetitive motions, so if anything, they should have more risk of developing CTS
Takeaway: I chose A and moved on quickly because I completely forgot that the stimulus had "who do similar amounts of typing". In fact, a red flag should have popped in my brain when I didn't see that as a control variable because the very fact that they do different amounts of typing would have allowed this stimulus to not be a RRE anyways.
21. Analogy
I knew that Passage A makes it's argument by saying that there is a system that rests on the assumption of "rational moral choice". Another field has disproved the idea of a "rational moral choice" and therefore, the system which is based on retribution ought to be abandoned.
B: A system (economic models) rests on the assumption of "rationality". Another field, psychology, has shown that people are not always rational. Therefore, the system which makes prediction should be abandoned. Although I think the beginning of the AC maps up very well, the end, that the system should be abandoned doesn't see to mean the same thing as it should be replaced. In that way, the ending seems too strong. I wonder if the AC said something like "the theory should therefore, change the way it predicts human behavior", would make this AC correct.
C: Those this under BR, the two differences between B and C is that C does not introduce another scientific field to disprove the notions and C states that the program should be replaced. The latter, that the program should be replaced, is more appealing to me because of the idea that retribution should be "replaced" with a focus on deterring future harms.
Takeaway: I was too focused on how the argument was made rather than the argument itself. Passage A is saying that a system should be replaced. That is the conclusion. The premise is that the assumptions underlying the system are wrong. AC C gets the premise and conclusion correct.
13. Attitude
I knew that the author was mainly positive in terms of "stealing thunder", but also had some qualifying statements as to when to use it or not.
C: I chose this under timed, because I was too focused on bringing up the idea that the author had some instances where it would not work. However, C is descriptively correct. Although the author does make qualifying statements (like in the last paragraph), when the author states that positive framing is good, but also there are limits. The author is not saying that the research is omitting this important information. Rather, that the research points to/suggests limitations of this technique. Also, when examining "simulated trial situations", the author states that the research shows that this technique is effective "at least within a reasonably broad range of applications". Therefore, although the author does make some qualifying statements of the limitations of the use of stealing thunder, the author is not concerned that the research itself omits the evidence.
D: The beginning of the second paragraph, the author explicitly mentions: "simulated trial situations have suggested that the technique, is in fact, effective" and that "lawyers' commonly held belief in the value of stealing thunder is not only corroborated by those experimental findings; it is also supported by several psychological explanations of why the technique should work". The author is therefore, directly approving of the use because it is supported by the experiments and can be psychologically explained.
Takeaway: Don't be sidetracked/invested in a certain aspect of the stimulus. Make sure that the AC are descriptively correct.
4. Inference
Got this question wrong under timed, but right during BR
I was caught between A and B because I knew both had been mentioned in the argument, but because I both misread the argument and made some jumps in reasoning, I chose the wrong answer timed.
A: We know that the passage says that "a brilliant perfumer may thus devise an imaginary world, no less powerful, or intimate, than that of a great composer or painter and in calling on our capacity to discover there some memory of childhood or of a long-forgotten experience, perfumers are in the same business as the artist". I was initially scared to choose A because in this case, using memories is only art in the case of perfumes. However, the answer choice is provable enough (a work of art CAN bring about an aesthetic experience), just like perfumes (which the author quantifies as a work of art) can bring about an aesthetic experience.
B: When describing how perfumes and oil paintings are sister arts, the author mentions that both oil paintings and perfumes use many smaller elements and build up to the final form. I made a jump in my reasoning to mean that therefore, there is a "harmonious combination of many small sensations". Where B goes wrong is that it is too powerful. "Any work of art, one can detect". All we know from the passage is the method for perfumes and paintings make them similar. It would be an assumption/jump to go from this to say that people can therefore detect these combinations.
Takeaway: I knew both were included and even went back to the passage to confirm A. After going back, I should have gone to the AC and seen that A does encompass the idea of bringing back memories (even if this is the mechanism attributed in the passage to perfumes), because A is very provable in its use of can as well as the author viewing perfume as art. Just because the passage dedicates more time to a topic (or how paintings and perfumes uses the build up of materials), does not mean that it is better supported/relevant.
6. Analogy
I knew that these cynical bean counters were swapping out ingredients in order to save money and increase profits.
B: I didn't like B because an entity is imposing cost saving restrictions on another entity. The sentence before the mention of cynical bean counters talk about how perfumes are distributed under the not particularly watchful gaze of a few large corporations. Therefore, I thought B would be more relevant if the analogy were to be made in relation to those corporations, because I thought the bean counters were talking about stores under the gaze of these corporations. However, there is no textual support for this, and I was making a jump from the information given in the passage. The most important thing to notice is the idea that there are cost saving restrictions, meaning that these companies are trying to reduce costs in order to maximize profits.
C: Blame my non-existent state of business knowledge, but I thought that because of these "projections" or predictions of declining revenues, there is a cut in budget because the director still wants to maximize profit. I guess the main difference is because these bean counters were cutting costs to increase profits, not to make sure they worked within the budget. Instead of viewing the director as someone evil and trying to cut costs ahead of time in order to maximize profits, I could have looked at this AC from a more neutral standpoint that this art director is just trying to do his job and make sure to work within the budget in light of information that there is going to be decreasing revenue.
Takeaway: Focus on the concept, what is the lsat writer trying to get me to realize/make a distinction of. In this case, the important fact is that perfume corporations are swapping ingredients to make a profit. That is what B is saying. Also, don't make weird assumptions like assuming that these bean counters are not corporations in order to justify an answer.
25. NA
The argument generalizes on two levels. The first is from junkyards to "generally" all cars, and the second is from parts to whole cars. The premises talk about junkyards and the demand/salability of 10+ v 10- car parts whereas the conclusion is talking about the demand/salability of cars 10+ v 10-.
A: Even if the salability of something is influenced by factors other than the level of demand, we don't know to what extent. Also, because the conclusion states "generally", the argument doesn't have to account for every single time. Even if some other factors may influence to a perceptible amount, as long as the general trend is that it is easier, then the argument is not broken.
B: If we negate, "it is not the case that all used cars 10+ are sold to junkyards" this could mean as few as one or two not being sold. If that is the case, once again, the conclusion "generally" allows the argument to not be very hurt.
C: This is not necessary because even if we negate, it's fine if something that is 8 years old is not harder to sell than if it is 6 years old. As long as, generally, those that are 10+ are harder to sell than 10-
D: If the lack of demand is offset by the lack of supply, wouldn't this cause more people to want to buy more 10- cars? The negation of D actually supports the argument because if only 5 people want a 10- car and this is offset by a lack of supply and there are only 3 cars that are 5-, then it would be easier to sell.
E: This AC acknowledges the generalizations that the argument is making. If the salability of cars that are 10+ is not a function of their demands for their parts, then the connection between the premise and the conclusion is gone. Especially because we know that the argument went from talking about junkyards to "generally", and from car parts to cars, without making the assumption that car parts demand=car demand, the negation of E would wreck the argument.
Takeaway: I didn't like how E only mentioned cars that were 10+, and under time I thought that this was a bad thing (with no reasoning). Instead, I should have been focused on how weak AC A is, especially when negated. And I should have realized that the greatest flaws in this argument are the generalizations the argument is making instead of making the assumption that car parts are representative of cars.
13. Necessary Assumption
P: voice recognition technology cannot distinguish between homophones
C: if technology is not improved to recognize and utilize then technology will not be accurate
Because of the jump from the premise to the conclusion, I immediately thought of this is a bridging NA question. However, I started looking for the bridge in the wrong place. I wanted to connect (not distinguish homophones) and (technology not recognize and utilize), because as with most NA questions, that would then allow us to go from the premise to the conclusion.
In other words, I was looking for
P: A
C: B→C
AC: A→B
D: fits what I was hunting for because D says if not distinguish then not recognize grammar and semantics (or A→B). However, as I can see now,
P: A
P: A→B
C: B→C
This is not a valid argument either because C would be a dangling variable. Nothing in the premises tells us that we can introduce C.
Instead, it is very reasonable to see that if technology cannot distinguish between homophones, then the technology is not accurate. Therefore we already have an (unspoken) bridge between the premise and the necessary part of the conclusion. Rewriting the argument with this implicit argument:
P: A
P: A→C
C: B→C
Now, in this case, we just need B→A in order to create the conditional chain B→A→C. In other words, we need an answer choice that says: If not recognize and utilize then not distinguish, and A says the contrapositive of this.
Takeaway: Although I've done this question timed and blind reviewed it before, I still got it wrong during my third go. The most important takeaway is to make sure that the bridge is creating a valid argument. Although D is very attractive because it builds some sort of bridge between the premises and the conclusion, it still leaves a dangling variable. Sometimes the bridge will be different than what is expected. Always double check and make sure what seems to be the cookie cutter answer choice, makes a valid argument.
16. MP
I had a general idea of the main point of the passage, that the author believes there are problematic assumptions being made with Marcusian critique. I was stuck between D and C.
C: I did not choose this timed, but I chose it during blind review. The clearest distinction between this and D is that this AC emphasizes "Marcusian" arguments. In the first paragraph, we learn that "some critics of advertising" have used Marcusian's theories. Under time, I was worried about the last part of the AC or the using of "elements of mass market culture to achieve genuine fulfillment". Because I did not know what elements the AC was talking about. In the passage, I knew that in the last paragraph, there was mention of how consumers could freely use products for fulfillment, but I didn't want to make the jump that "elements of mass market culture" were these products.
D: I chose this under time but didn't with blind review. D is incorrect because the general statement, "critics of advertising", when the passage clearly states that only some critics focus on the development of false needs. Also, the passage never states "by distinguishing their own real needs from the apparent needs". In fact, it only states that these critics don't consider the possibility of autonomous decision making.
Takeaway: Make sure the answer is descriptively correct and go back to the passage when choosing between two answer choices.
19. Recognition
I had trouble with this question because I had trouble making the distinction between Marcuse's beliefs and the belief's of critics/ the argument.
A: I crossed this off first round for both timed and blind review. The reason being that, I remembered that "the implicit promises of advertisements are never really fulfilled and the consumer remains at some level unsatisfied" (24). However, this statement is made in the context of "the promises of the advertisements are not fulfilled" (24). This is in line with the idea that "modern people succumb to oppression by believing themselves satisfied in spite of their living in an objectively unsatisfying world". Yes, advertisements do not fulfill promises and therefore, the consumer remains at THAT level unsatisfied. But that is the consequences of the advertisement. In the case of A, it is saying, advertisement "leads" people to think they are satisfied, which is what Marcuse is attributed to saying because consumers "believe themselves satisfied" due to the "process.. in mass market culture the powerful psychological techniques of advertisement". I was also afraid to read beyond lines 10, because I thought that this was the application made by the author of Marcuse's argument. However, lines 10-15 support Marcuse's claim made in lines 6-8.
C: I chose this during Blind Review because I thought Marcuse was saying that there are connections forged between real and fake needs (second paragraph), and I thought the implicit assumption was that people chose to try and satisfy these because they could not make a distinction between them. However, if it were impossible to draw a meaningful distinction, then it would be impossible for Marcuse to come up with his theory and instead, this is just an implication of his belief.
An example of argument v. implication.
Someone believes that everyone should only eat meat because agriculture is taking up too much of the land and depriving soil... etc. This would imply that more land would have to be used for raising meat. But the author never states that/may not be aware.
E: I chose this under time because advertisements use basic human needs (such as sex), by deriving from them false needs (like perfume). However, these false needs never become "real" needs. Also, Marcuse says that there are associations forged between them. Not that they are derived from real needs. Also, I liked the last part of this answer, that it subtly works to the detriment of consumers.
Takeaway: Marcuse's views are explained in paragraphs one and two. Focusing only on what the author says about Marcuse in both paragraphs, and realizing that the entirety of the first paragraph is explaining Marcuse's views is important. I should have gone back to skim the first paragraph (solidify the idea that Marcuse believes that the process of oppression is because of the creation of false needs through advertisements), and the second paragraph that Marcuse believes advertising uses real and false needs. Those are the two attributions and so C (an implication of Marcuse's belief) and E (the idea they become real needs), are not trap answers anymore
20. Meaning
In line 32 the author says that in order to separate out real needs from the alleged false needs, it would be necessary to eliminate forces of persuasion that are prevalent in society and that inform our instinctive judgments about things. I thought that these forces of persuasion are advertisements.
A: I was worried about the modifier "intentionally" and "dishonest", although advertisements may forge connections between needs, these do not have to be intentionally dishonest. Also, the idea that theorists? We know that some critics of advertisement believe these are common in advertising. However, after eliminating all other answer choices, I came back to choose A.
E: I eliminated E because I didn't like the last part "go unrecognized by those affected by them", because I was focused on the idea that an individual can make autonomous choices. However, in context, lines 31-34 is talking about If Marcusians are right. In other words, the idea that consumers can make autonomous decisions is introduced in the next paragraph and the qualifier in the answer choice, that some theorists say, brings the focus back to the Marcusian idea that consumers do not recognize that they are being manipulated and therefore, believe themselves satisfied. If consumers can't distinguish between their own real and false needs, then they do not recognize the influences.
Takeaway: Instead of allowing points of the passage lead me to eliminate answers, look at the qualifiers and make distinctions between people's arguments.
5. Tone
The author disagrees with the strict Darwinist's so it's clear that C-E can be eliminated
Between A and B, I thought I should go with the more "milder" answer choice so I chose B.
A: Emphatic means with emphasis or clearly. So the author is clearly disagreeing. This is supported because the author even states that Darwin is against the view of the strict Darwinist's and the rest of the passages are reasons that the author disagrees with the strict Darwinist's views.
B: Mild disapproval would (I guess now I know) mean that the author took one side but also gave leeway/reason to agree with the other side as way. However, throughout the passage, the author is firmly on the side against strict Darwinists. I guess, it's important to realize that the whole passage, the author is firm in arguing against the strict Darwinists and therefore, this cannot be seen as just disapproval or being mild. Even if no "strong" words were used when talking about strict Darwinists, the author was not mild in his stance.
Takeaway: don't always go for the more neutral answer. If throughout the passage, the author had conceded some points or had agreed in some aspects, perhaps then the tone would be considered mild. Also, keep in mind that emphatic means with emphasis.
RRE
When we are resolving or coming up with an explanation, we have to explain all aspects of the phenomenon. In this case we have to answer 1. Why plankton are dying and 2. why fish are also dying while keeping in mind that 3. other organisms are not dying.
I was stuck between B and D
A: Violates 3. or why other organisms are not dying. If companies are dumping large amounts of waste for many years, this would probably affect other organisms as well. We can't assume that other organisms are immune just like we can't assume that the plankton and fishes would be affected
B: The bacteria is attacking the plankton (explains 1 or why plankton are dying), the bacteria is also attacking fish species (explains 2). The fact this bacteria is "new" explains why there has been a recent drop. And because nothing is mentioned by way of whether or not this bacteria affects other fish, we are good with (3) as well.
C: Explains 1 (why plankton are dying), but now 2 (why fish are dying)
D: Explains 2 (why fish are dying), and does say that plankton populations have gone down. But does not say WHY plankton populations have decreased. That is the key difference between D and B and the reason that D is wrong.
E: This would clearly violate 3
Takeaway: With RRE questions, identify what needs to be resolved or what needs to be explained, and make sure to explain all points while also leaving other variables alone.
Weaken
Argument:
OPA: financial rewards are the strongest incentive for choosing a job
P: in surveys, most people do not list high salary as the most desirable feature
C: people are not that motivated by money when choosing a job
This argument basically uses three different nouns: financial rewards, salary and money. Financial rewards and money are synonymous in context of this argument, but salary is a little more specific. Salary, or a person's income is only a part of the financial rewards/money offered with a job. A good loophole would have been, what if salary and other monetary incentives are the biggest factor?
A: cool fact that's not relevant because using wages to obtain goods is outside the scope of the argument
B: Many (meaning some, so perhaps even just one or two surveys), people say that they prefer a high wage job to an otherwise identical job with lower wages. Basically, if everything is the same except wage, then people will choose the job with higher wages. This is common sense, and it does not weaken or strengthen the argument. If everything is the same, then money does become the strongest incentive. We don't know what would happen if everything else wasn't held constant anymore.
C: Here, the discrepancy between salary and financial benefits is emphasized. In the argument, the author uses a survey that says that salary is not the most desirable feature. What if salary and financial benefits aren't correlated or related in any way? Then the premise no longer provides any support for the conclusion.
D: Many (as in some) people enjoy the challenge of a difficult job. Great! Once again, what people enjoy does not matter. We are trying to see if people value financial rewards the most when choosing a job
E: A person could not be aware that jobs with high salaries leave little time for recreation, and still see it as the most strong incentive
Takeaway: Look for the dangling variable. Classify what the premise and conclusion is and see if there are any discrepancies. Make sure not to attack a premise, but the reasoning of the argument.