I think this question might actually be better identified as a principle question. I think the right answer makes more sense when you think of the question in that way. I'd argue that the last sentence actually functions as the conclusions of the stimulus (most MSS questions do not have a conclusion). While weak, as it doesn't tell us specifically why delegating responsibilities makes employees do good work for the sake of doing good work, it functions more as a proposal/should statement (therefore, a manager should delegate responsibility to her employees because it is one of the best ways to encourage employees to do a good job for the sake of doing a good job).

If we think about it like that, I think C is the only answer that answers the question (which one of the following propositions is best illustrated by the situation described in the passage?). I chose E timed and under BR thinking that it needed to speak to the motivations of the employees. However, if the main point of the stimulus is that managers should do something, then the proposition best illustrated must include information about what those managers should do.

Only C (In some cases, one's effectiveness in a particular role can be enhanced by a partial relinquishing of control) that accurately speaks to what the passage is arguing managers should do if they want to achieve a particular goal.

E only speaks to the first two components of the "argument" (in quotes because the conclusion is weak/debatable); it has nothing to do with the delegation piece. Let me know if I'm completely off-base!

Many sociologists believe that a complex phenomenon cannot be caused by a simple phenomenon, which is the grounds for why they oppose the rational choice theory. This stance equates popular support for various political parties with a complex phenomenon and "deliberate decisions by individual voters to choose the candidate they believe will be most economically beneficial to them" and a simple phenomenon.

Because the RCT explanation "deliberate decisions..." is equated to a simple phenomenon, that means that the thing it is explaining "popular support..." cannot be a complex phenomenon per many sociologist's logic, which is what AC A says.

LOL i did not read the qualifier "in logic" when I read this. I was like yeah, logicians shouldn't have to be logical in all of their discussions in the same way a doctor shouldn't have to be healthy in all of their lifestyle choices. In logic changes this drastically! A professional should have to literally do their job when doing their job...seems pretty obvious and is TOTALLY not similar to the comment about physicians & their personal lifestyle...

Conclusion: disease-causing microorganisms were probably the crucial factor that accounts for the extinctions.

Premise: Why? Because it probably wasn't caused by hunting. And, the small bands of new human arrivals (and the animals that followed them) encountered many species while undoubtedly carrying disease-causing microorganisms.

a - "animals weakened by the disease are not only less able to avoid hunters but are also less able to avoid their other predators." This seems to strengthen the argument. If the animals were able to escape their main threats until contracting this disease, that's a piece of evidence for the disease being a "crucial factor"

b - "human beings generally have a substantial degree of biological immunity to the diseases carried by other species." I don't think this is relevant because it's not about transfer of disease from animals to human, it's about transfer from human to animals.

c - "very few species of North American animals not hunted by the new arrivals from Asia were extinct 2,000 years after the first migrations." The new arrivals did not hunt deer, rabbit, squirrels, and gleeks. Out of those, only the gleek was extinct 2000 years after the migration. This is saying that hunting actually maybe did have an effect on the extinction. I just don't believe I'm allowed to question the validity of the premises. Maybe it's different if the premise says "it is implausible that hunting by these small bands of humans could have had such an effect." It is different for the premise to say something is implausible. Implausible is not the same as impossible. You are not attacking the premise by putting more evidence into the hunting side of the argument. This statement "very few species of North American animals not hunted by the new arrivals from Asia were extinct 2,000 years after the first migrations does not change the fact that it is implausible that hunting caused the extinction. However, because the argument is forcing us a choice between hunting and disease-causing microorganisms as the crucial factor of the extinction, adding more evidence to something arbitrarily deemed implausible makes it harder for us to make a choice between the two at the least.

Additionally, the argument isn't even arguing that the disease-carrying microorganisms caused the extinction! I think the use of the term "crucial factor" is really deliberate here because it is less strong than saying x alone caused y.

d - "individual humans and animals can carry a disease-causing microorganism without themselves suffering from the disease." this is exactly what i thought might be wrong with the argument. But, I see how it actually doesn't weaken the argument. It more-so weakens the premise alone or the conclusion alone. Because the main opening to weakness in the argument is that because they have said because one possible explanation is implausible that it is probably true that the other possible explanation is the crucial factor that accounts for the phenomenon. Even if d were true, it's not undermining what the argument is subliminally saying - the disease-causing microorganism is more likely to be the cause for the extinctions that hunting. This answer just questions whether or not the microorganisms actually cause disease...

e - "Some species of North American animals became extinct more than 2,000 years after the arrival in North America of the first prehistoric human migrants from Asia." This just isn't relevant.

I think what is tough about this question is that out of context, C is obviously not correct. The sentence literally says "hey, what follows is contrary to Malthus!" and then what follows is the part of the argument we're discussing. But because the argument ultimately ends up endorsing Malthus's prediction that insufficient food will doom humanity, you do some LSAT mental gymnastics and you believe that because of the author's later claim about biodiversity, eventually we'll be back on the same page with Malthus, making this part of the statement seems to play a role in our author's eventual agreement with Malthus.

However, (and someone wrote this down below as well), SURELY the author did not mean to include this sentence with the purpose of it agreeing with Malthus. When you take the sentence alone as described above, how could this sentence possibly serve the function of agreeing with Malthus when it explicitly says it is contrary.

The function the phrase is serving is to demonstrate the status quo today - we have sufficient food producing capabilities. But, the author argues that eventually we will end with insufficient food producing capabilities. This transition in the argument demonstrates the author is including the current status quo to argue that a change will take place (destruction of biodiversity) that will create insufficient food production.

6 makes no sense. I didn't think that we could base our opinion of what the author is likely to believe about the progression based on what the author attributes to Schoenberg himself. Just because Schoenberg saw the progression as inevitable does not mean that the author saw it that way. So, excluding that piece of evidence, it seemed like all I had to go off of was the author stating as the second progression "Schoenberg later pushed those unstable harmonies until they no longer had a tonal basis." How am I supposed to believe that he views that as a natural progression????

E is wrong because it is comparing the versatool to single-function tools like screwdrivers, wrenches, and hammers. The argument compare the versatool to other MULTIfunction tools like a swiss army knife. hope this helps someone not feel like a major TOOL

I think this question is really hard because it relies on the reader believing that there is still room in the argument for the direct-mail advertisement to be bad for the environment simply because it is made out of paper. Most of us understand that it bad for the environment to use more paper than is absolutely necessary.

However, this argument isn't about the direct-mail advertisements being on paper at all. It's about car pollution being bad for the environment, which direct-mail advertisements present an alternative to.

If you're still concerned with the DMA being on paper, then you would never see B as a strengthening answer choice. "Most of the products purchased in response to direct-mail advertisements would be purchased even without the direct-mail advertisements." You read this answer choice and you think, wow, DMAs are a serious waste of paper. But, you fail to see that this answer choice is actually just getting at the way in which DMAs prevent an individual from polluting via car emissions by driving to the store to go get an item they could have just ordered online/via phone.

I think this question is really hard because it relies on the reader believing that there is still room in the argument for the direct-mail advertisement to be bad for the environment simply because it is made out of paper. Most of us understand that it bad for the environment to use more paper than is absolutely necessary.

However, this argument isn't about the direct-mail advertisements being on paper at all. It's about car pollution being bad for the environment, which direct-mail advertisements present an alternative to.

If you're still concerned with the DMA being on paper, then you would never see B as a strengthening answer choice. "Most of the products purchased in response to direct-mail advertisements would be purchased even without the direct-mail advertisements." You read this answer choice and you think, wow, DMAs are a serious waste of paper. But, you fail to see that this answer choice is actually just getting at the way in which DMAs prevent an individual from polluting via car emissions by driving to the store to go get an item they could have just ordered online/via phone.

I don't understand why we're complicating question 1. It seems like a straightforward group 3 translation is most clear. Just because the pandas have a modifier telling me the specific group of pandas I'm talking about are the ones that have been relocated to this part of the forest doesn't change that ultimately the necessary condition is pandas [not] prosper.

Idk, I just don't think it's helpful for me to get caught up in modifiers which ultimately obscure the form of the sentence.

Can I always say that the sufficient condition leads to the necessary condition? I never thought of their relationship like that because it feels so causal rather than conditional. That wording weirded me out; I didn't want to pick b.

Cannot emphasize enough how much more I am appreciating this version of the core compared to version 1 thank you!!!

I didn't know this about DeMorgan's law. What happens if it says not A and B? Does that translate to A or B ? What happens if it is not A or not B, do you still apply DeMorgan's and change the or to an and?

JY says that there will be two concert halls because of the public plan and the proposal from the surveys. There's no need to tear down this concert hall because there is already a different plan to build a new one nearby. That's what he means by "there would be two of them."

How can you differentiate between a "general principle" and a "conclusion" when the general principle is the conclusion. I understand why B is wrong based on the language "about a particular case on the basis of a general principle" (should be flipped). I'm just struggling with the identification of "general principles" on LR questions - who am I to say what is and isn't considered a general principle? #help

I find this question really frustrating because of the sentence structure for Graham's argument. I had B chosen for ~20 seconds and then changed to B at the last minute. Because of the common splice - it looks like Graham's "conclusion" is really just a restatement of the phrase beforehand (the premise).

Idk how to avoid this trap in the future, but I just didn't assume that the relationship between the two phrases was one of premise and conclusion but rather conclusion and a restatement of the conclusion, which lead me to ultimately select D instead of the correct answer, B.

I'm still confused why we're allowed to criticize the premises. I understand how we can criticize a false dichotomy assumption. I'm just worried I wouldn't be able to confidently choose this answer under an analogous question.