How do we go from making the and statements from the conditionals we are given to saying he knows "some" people are one of the either. My question is why is some the quantity that is being used. Why not most or all? Is it because of the valid argument form (all, all, some)?

#help (Added by Admin)

As I saw the common, "some people say, but this is not true argument...", I immediately thought NOT ALL and searched for that in the ACs. I also remembered that negating "SOME" gives us "NO/NONE/ALL NOT". Is this the same as "NOT ALL"? Is this a safe way to answer some of these cookie cutter arguments or did I just get lucky?

I got this question right but it hinged on the assumption that if we aren't using a machine we are doing it by hand, which granted is a pretty safe assumption. However, I have been wary of making these assumptions based on real world experience. For instance, the first question requires making an assumption that short-fibered cotton is the only alternative to long-fibered cotton which again is a safe assumption but still leaves out some options. I did eliminate that answer because I thought about other colors that were not discussed that made this inference "could be true". I know this is an old LSAT question, but I guess in these MBT questions, where do we draw the line with safe assumptions based on real world experience?

I found that the trick to this answer was that Helena's argument is actually very poorly stated. She says that extroversion is NOT biologically determined but then uses the word "tend". On a fast pass, I eliminated AC (D) because to me it went against here conclusion. But, clearly the word "tend" is very important as it leaves Jay the room to say that there is at least one case where Helena's conclusion is not true, which does not really go against Helena's argument.

Can someone help me understand when we should know to have the intuition to be negating a conditional statement to arrive at our conclusion? This question may not make sense, but I am having a hard time distinguishing when this is an appropriate approach to a question.

Essentially the way I solved this question was that I noticed in John's statement he said "a great writer must AT LEAST have the ability to explore a particular theme deeply" so I figured that an answer choice could not be definitive which I guess is the case of negating conditional statements (all to some, etc.) Effectively the necessary is not required for the sufficient to be true.

It does make sense to me, but I am having a hard time picking up on this relationship in the questions. It seems that understanding when to negate the conditional is important to understand, so if anyone has any tips for me that would be greatly appreciated.

#help (Added by Admin)

Correct me if I am wrong, but I found this one interesting because the question stem asks us to favor one idea over the other, however I landed on AC E because I saw that it nicely reconciled both ideas in favor of one, whereas AC (D) focus on only one side of the argument. It is from my understanding that when doing RRE questions, we should find an AC that generally allows us to knock down the "contradiction" between the two claims. So, I anticipated an AC that used both sides of the argument to arrive at a resolution.

I think for an explanation of why D is wrong, it is not really in the realm to imagine that you could export more effective tools such as assassination or freedom as explained. I fell for this because I kept it in the realm of what you can actually tangibly export and thought great this makes sense. However, I applied the negation rule to its fullest power (ie go from most to not effective) and that is what tripped me up. I see that if you knock down the "strength" of your negation (ie from most effective to second most effective) it does not completely destroy the argument.

In general, when using the negation rule when we have statements that aren't fully committal (ie all, every, the only) we need to think about these other degrees. But also, in general should we be cautious of NA ACs that utilize these more general quantifies, ie, most, some because of this? I imagine this could save some time eliminating ACs. If anyone has some insight or picked up on a trend like this that would be great to know. Thanks!

A little help here would be great. I understand why D is not correct, because it is too broad and can be applied across the board for many different types of scientific claims, however when we do use the negation rule it is of my opinion that it does wreck the argument pretty well and not necessary much better than AC (E). I guess understanding the scope of assumptions is helpful here.

Yes this issue exists for me. Could we please have someone from 7sage respond to this and let us know when the problem will be fixed? That would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Can someone better explain the way we approach "take for granted" on the LSAT. I see it as something we have assumed already? Does that make sense.

#help (Added by Admin)

I am having a hard time here deciding between AC (B) and (D). JY's explanation for D not being correct was that we should not try to "change" the conclusion effectively. But, I also see that besides this, the AC seems like it is also getting to the main flaw in the argument and that is that it should focus on the relationship between the drug and its effects on cholesterol levels.

I originally chose answer choice D as I saw the slight parallel in the analogy there, albeit pretty weak. I was wondering if it is common that an analogy like this is found to be a correct AC at any time or in general do these analogies leave us with the ability to make too many assumptions. It does seem that way but it would be nice to know from some people's more extensive experience with the LSAT if we should be wary of analogies as correct ACs. Thanks!

So, correct me if I am wrong but I arrived at the correct understanding of this question by seeing that the president says "the only" options, meaning what follows are sufficient conditions, not necessary conditions to solving the problems. Does this mean that because they are sufficient we could have other solutions to the problem?

I struggle with the subtlety of the "only flaw option" because I feel that justifying the flaw with this forces us to make more assumptions about what could be the solution which is not something we tend to do on the LSAT since we accept the premises and conclusion to be true. And the answer choice in my opinion does directly attack that lesson we have been drilled to learn.

#help (Added by Admin)

So I understand the identified flaw here is a belief v. fact situation. I have found this flaw particularly subtle and sometimes difficult to see right away. Just by applying the idea that just because a group of people believe something to be real, that it is the truth to be rather unconvincing given a lot of stimulus could precipitate this argument. Does anyone have a better way of being able to spot this flaw in a more substantial way on the LSAT?

#help (Added by Admin)

I am seeming to mix up the EXCEPT questions and am seeking an AC that looks to support the argument. I do know you are more looking for the irrelevant AC. Does anyone have any good strategy for these types of questions? Like your mindset when you approach these questions? Thanks.