Big sad because I had 3 minutes left for the last LG (normally I finish all LGs but I guess nerves got to me and slowed me down)… anyways, I actually got the game board decently set up and then ran out of time… During the 10 minute break I solved all possible worlds for the game… SO SAD! Probably could’ve answered all questions with an extra minute or 2. :(

For question 6, I initially chose AC B, but during BR I switched to AC E because would "a historical novel that re-creates actual events that occurred" not be non-fiction???

#help

Lol got this wrong because I thought ANYONE who drank at all while out would be considered a "social drinker"... Just now realized that Miguel didn't mention anything about the "heavy drinkers" he describes being with any friends. Small, stupid mistakes will be the death of me on this test!!!!!

One thing that confused me with this question and caused me to waste time debating if I chose the correct AC was the fact AC E says "whether the economically privileged members of society are less exposed to certain sorts of injustices"... The word exposed seems unfitting as Larissa is simply arguing that they are better at protecting themselves from these injustices. Who's to say that they don't have the same exposure to these injustices? I assumed that Larissa meant that they have the same exposure, but the economically privileged are better educated/equipped to handle these sorts of circumstances. Not a make-or-break issue in terms of getting the question right/wrong, but this definitely added extra time to my thought process. Did anyone else debate the use of this word?

So is this both a necessary and sufficient assumption?

#help (Added by Admin)

How is this a 121-level question?! I have gotten every NA question on all problem sets correct so far and this was the one that tricked me. On both the timed drill and blind review I chose B, "Apes are incapable of thinking in human language".

No matter how many times I watch J.Y.'s explanation, AC C, "Philosophical thought can be expressed only in human language", still doesn't sit right with me... Just because something can only be expressed in a certain way doesn't mean that it doesn't exist (especially with something as complex as thoughts) and the conclusion is essentially stating that apes are incapable of philosophical thought! I believe this is a HUGE assumption to make. Who's to say apes aren't having these philosophical thoughts and not expressing them verbally even though they are capable of speaking in human language? The LSAT is purporting something that can be true to be something that must be true (i.e. it must be true that if apes have philosophical thought, then they must express these thoughts through talking)... What if they're shy...? :$

Haha, please correct my logic if I am missing something. #help

Hi! I sense your frustrations! Perhaps another explanation that is completely different reasoning from J.Y.'s for why AC A is wrong will help...

Consider the phrase "sole deciding factor in choosing among competing scientific theories" used in AC A. "Sole deciding factor" of what? Which one is most scientifically important? Which one is inferior? Which one is least plausible? We simply cannot say conclusively that this means the SOLE DECIDING FACTOR in which theory is superior when given two theories! I mean technically that would be an assumption that AC D addresses...

So are "and" statements in biconditionals always jointly necessary/sufficient (i.e. in the context of this question, a society must ensure both that, each person has an equal right to basic liberties, and that inequalities in the distribution of wealth and income are not tolerated unless these inequalities are to everyone's advantage and are attached to jobs open to everyone in order to be considered just or the contrapositive?). Moreover, if this is the case for "and" statements within biconditionals, would the conditions within an"or" statement embedded in a biconditional still be independent?

So interesting! Absolutely loved that J.Y. included this.

I completely agree! I got this question wrong strictly based on my interpretation of the last part of the last sentence, "only Medina shares her opinion". I was thinking this meant that she was the only person who discussed the issue with the public/media at all and the others did not. That's why I went with AC C because, if my interpretation of the language was what the LSAT intended, it would be logical to assume that Kay couldn't vote for any of them as it says "it is otherwise unacceptable to vote for that candidate" in the premises. Very frustrating!

I incorrectly chose AC D which is a trap AC because it sounds like a viable solution for the province to potentially receive a net increase in spending, however, it doesn't weaken the argument itself. Rather, AC D attacks the premises and changes the argument. AC D suggests an alternative to refunding the $600 million to taxpayers (i.e. using $600 million for construction projects instead). Nonetheless, the whole argument revolves around giving taxpayers this $600 million refund and how this isn't beneficial, or a good idea of any sort, because it can not result in a provincial economic net increase in spending due to the fact the budget has to remain balanced and the province would have to either impose a new tax (rendering the refund pointless) OR fire some of its workers (which would take away from their ability to spend). Thus, AC D is completely irrelevant as it doesn't weaken the conclusion/support for the claim that a refund of $600 million is not beneficial/will not result in a net increase in the economy's spending. AC E is the correct answer because it attacks a loophole in one of the premises undermining its support. The premise states that if the $600 million is refunded to taxpayers the ONLY options for making up this debt, and keeping the province's budget balanced, would be either imposing a new tax OR dismissing workers. Thus, AC E comes in and is like, "no, actually, FYI, there is an alternative to keeping the budget balanced and still refunding the $600 million to taxpayers. Specifically replacing the option of dismissing the workers, and that is to simply use the workers more efficiently which would result in $600 million in savings!"... Hopefully, that personification of AC E helped you understand how it weakens the argument in a way AC D fails to do... AC E leaves the original premises intact but renders the support irrelevant by offering an option that allows for the taxpayer refund AND a net increase in economic spending.

Never mind, hehe, I was completely forgetting the premise that indicates 18-year-olds in this republic are generally EITHER high school graduates OR high school dropouts... So, it would be mutually exclusive for the percentage of 18-year-old high school dropouts and high school graduates to rise simultaneously. I am so relieved, I was driving myself crazy over rationalizing this question.

#help

Alright, so my question is regarding AC C, how can we be so sure that just because the percentage of high school graduates being recruited rose sharply that the percentage of high school drop-outs didn't rise more sharply?

Recruiting high school graduates and recruiting high school drop-outs are not mutually exclusive...?

I chose AC B because, yes, although we don't know exactly how many high school graduate-level recruitments are needed to operate these high-tech systems, I believe this is less presumptious than the assumption AC C makes (i.e. that the percentage of high school drop-outs and graduates couldn't both have risen)...

I cannot rationalize this question no matter how hard I try! Please help!

I chose A as well... This is how I rationalized it being wrong and why D actually attacks the support of the argued conclusion:

AC A: "Regardless of the truth of what the subjects were later told, the beliefs based on the original statements were, for the most part, correct."

So, when I first read this, I interpreted it to mean that the belief was truthful regardless of if the statement was truthful. So, for instance, if the subjects were told: "a hate crime had been committed", the newly acquired belief may have been generically, or morally, "correct" (i.e. they acquired the belief that "criminals that commit hate crimes lack empathy"). In this way, even if the specific hate crime told to the subjects didn't actually happen and that statement was a complete lie, the thoughts/opinions/beliefs surrounding the hypothetical situation still stand correct and people that commit hate crimes still do lack empathy.

However, I realized this still does not weaken the argument because, regardless of if those "generic" beliefs still stood intact, they are only backed by common sense as evidence and this is also a big assumption to make.

AC D: "Most of the subjects had acquired confirmation of their newly acquired beliefs by the time they were told the original statements were false."

This AC makes up for AC A's shortcomings in that it addresses there was some sort of actual credible evidence that supported the newly acquired beliefs, as opposed to the assumption of common sense alone supporting the beliefs. Moreover, this directly attacks the support for the conclusion that states "humans continue to hold onto acquired beliefs even in the absence of any credible evidence to support them" as the subjects now had credible, confirmed evidence/confirmation to support their beliefs.

My thoughts exactly.

I chose AC B as it is quite attractive in that it states the ozone over the Arctic is indeed DECREASING. However, B claims that these decreases "tend to be seasonal rather than constant" which just attacks the gov officials' premise and doesn't undermine the relationship between the context referred to in the conclusion (i.e. referential phrasing: "these concerns") and the dismissal of the contextual concerns (i.e. the conclusion). Also, whose to say exactly what seasonal decreases in Arctic ozone levels do to global atmospheric levels, or if perhaps the ozone levels replenish themselves in the seasons they're not decreasing? Thus, the relevance of the evidence cited by the gov official is not necessarily weakened.

Nonetheless, with AC D the evidence remains intake, but, is greatly weakened in terms of why UV radiation 'shouldn't' cause concern for the Arctic region (and in fact in both polar regions). If quantities of ozone shifted away from the polar caps, correspondingly increasing ozone levels in other regions (presumably the equator), this implies that the global ozone levels remain constant because there isn't LESS ozone globally, it is just relocating, leaving the Arctic, and the Antarctic, vulnerable to UV radiation reaching Earth and, thus, damaging marine life.

Oh wow!! This really helped; I completely changed my perception of the sentence! Thanks so much.

Thank you so much; this explanation finally made this AC click for me!

I didn't see any discussion comments about anyone else getting confused with the sentence "they have also claimed that any given individual molecule of substance can activate at most one sweetness receptor and that the fewer molecules that are required to activate a receptor, the sweeter that substance will be perceived to be"...

Nonetheless, the use of the words "any given INDIVIDUAL molecule" in the stimulus really confused me! It caused me to waste time rereading because initially, after reading the beginning of that sentence, I thought it meant 1 molecule of any type activates 1 receptor. Does individual not mean one?!?! Then when I moved onto the next part of the sentence that says "the fewer molecules that are required to activate a receptor", I was like "wait what...?" and had to reread... I still think that was poorly worded... Should've just left the descriptive words to "any given", the addition of the word individual is indicative of a single molecule!

Also, to jump on a more common bandwagon I am seeing in this comment section, I was tentative choosing AC C because what if a substance could activate a sweetness receptor with a single atom (what molecules are made up of)?! That's a pretty gnarly assumption to base the correct AC upon if you ask me!

Thank you for this! I just left a comment inquiring about this, before reading more of the discussion forum, and this really helped me to see with 100% confidence why AC D is incorrect. I didn't catch the "as"!

I got this question right, however, I am not 100% confident on why exactly AC D is incorrect. "The mental aspects of exercise are as important as the physical ones" sounds tempting to me because in the stimulus it states "Having learned to THINK of themselves as unathletic, they do not exercise enough to stay healthy". Thus, this sounds to me like an example of the "mental aspects of exercise" (i.e. thinking of oneself as unathletic) leading to the disturbance in "the physical aspects of exercise" (i.e. not exercising enough to, thus, stay healthy - which is important).

Again, I see how AC A is more strongly supported and chose it, but can please someone help me to understand why exactly this logic of why AC E could be supported by the stimulus is wrong?

Alright so, thought I'd give me two cents worth about this question...

I got the correct answer, AC C, but not necessarily for the same reasoning that J.Y uses in his explanation... hear me out, and please, let me know if my logic is incorrect.

So, the one problem I have with J.Y's explanation is that, in his graph illustrating the correlation between cholesterol/fat consumption on the x-axis and serum cholesterol on the y-axis, he describes the point at which the average consumption level and the part of the theoretical line with a new slope (that no longer increases at a proportional rate to consumption level, as it is past the threshold), as the "AVERAGE SERUM CHOLESTEROL" on the y-axis. However, I would argue that this can't be stated as the "average" serum cholesterol level of North Americans because that is too bold of an assumption. Sure, the average serum cholesterol is likely around that level given that a person's dietary consumption of cholesterol and fat is stated as ONE OF the most important factors determining serum cholesterol; but, technically we do not know the average serum cholesterol level of North Americans.

Anyways, that's why I went with AC C... specifically the fact that it stated "people who consume 1/2 as much cholesterol and fat as the average North American WILL NOT NECESSARILY have half the average serum cholesterol level"... emphasis on the "not necessarily", in case if you couldn't tell from the caps lock. :')

So, let's just say that, hypothetically, the average serum cholesterol level was equivalent to the threshold level stated in the stimulus (given potential external variables/factors like increased exercise, non-smokers, etc.). In this case, people who consume half the cholesterol and fat of an average North American would have half the average serum cholesterol level! Unlikely, but possible... right?

I got this question right, however, not with 100% confidence. I got tripped up on which sentence the conclusion was. Luckily, my intuition guided me to labeling the correct sentence as the conclusion, "but we need to determine whether the changes are warranted, taking into account their price".

However, I struggled to rationalize why "but such massive interventions would be costly and would change the character of science" wasn't the conclusion. I was trying to use the persuasion method and ask myself if this statement is supporting or being supported... Nonetheless, I can't fathom how the last sentence about the interventions being costly and changing the character of science is supporting the identified main conclusion (i.e. sentence 2). This confusion made me toss up the idea of choosing AC B, but then I couldn't fathom how that would differ from AC D in the sense that both those claims are made in the last sentence that I thought could've been the conclusion... So anyway, again, I went with AC E but it would be great if someone could clarify how exactly the last sentence acts as support for sentence 2 and why exactly AC B and D are 100% incorrect. Thanks!

#Help

Initially, during the timed practice set, I chose A because the author states that "there is no reason to think these scientists will be any more successful in the future", after addressing that, currently, they haven't even found a shred of evidence to indicate extraterrestrial life.

At first, I was going to refute your explanation for why AC A is incorrect, but after more scrutiny, I see what you mean... The author just says that there is no reason to believe the SCIENTISTS will ever discover extraterrestrial life... I guess I was wrong to assume that kind of implies that the author doesn't think there is life on other planets...? That just feels like it should be a necessary assumption for the claim that there is no reason to believe the scientists will find it.

I ended up changing my AC during my blind review to C. However, under time pressure, I was really tossed up with which sentence was the conclusion; I kind of panicked, rage quit, and went with A lol, but with more time to consider I still struggled to identify the conclusion, although my intuition told me to change to C.

I am going to flag this question but can someone please try and break this explanation down a bit further and help me to be 100% confident in labeling this conclusion? Thanks!

The keyword to be aware of in AC B that makes it incorrect is "always". The intended outcome, or end value, will NOT ALWAYS justify the means/action to achieve it. For instance, as J.Y states, running over two kittens, in order to get to a friend and help him with car issues, is morally unjust and, therefore, NOT justified.

Thus, the fact AC C uses the term "only", makes it correct. This is basically just saying that the ONLY way to appeal to the consequences (i.e. means) of an action is to CONSIDER the end value. In this AC, it is saying that you should essentially always weigh your pros and cons of performing an action in contrast to the end value of that action... However, it will not necessarily ALWAYS be the case that the pros of performing that action will outweigh the cons of performing that action. Nonetheless, appealing to the value of the intended outcome is the only way to know if the means/action is justifiable or not.

I hope that helps, this question was definitely confusing!