This is currently my predicament. Maybe we could help each other through these last few weeks!
This argument asserts that because clay tablets dating back to 3300 to 3200 B.C. were found with writing on them, it is false to claim that the Sumerian's invented literature.
- need to figure out what must be true if the conclusion, that the Sumerian's must not have invented literature, is true.
A. The fate of the other tablets does not matter for the sake of the argument, because you only need one tablet pre-dating the evidence in favor of the Sumerian argument in order for the conclusion to be true.
B. This is not necessary. Only need this one culture to have kept written records.
C. This is necessary, because without it, the conclusion could not be made, because it would not be possible for these clay tablets to be the earliest evidence if the Sumerian evidence was around earlier than 3000 BC.
D. Not necessary and serves to hurt the argument.
E. It is not necessary for the entire culture to have appeared at any certain date; only their written record. They could have appeared earlier than this provided time and the conclusion could still be made.
The argument asserts that making products from recycled materials presents the same environmental damage that production of non-recycled materials presents.
- however, what if there are other factors overlooked in this argument?
- for one, using already gathered materials spares the trouble, and environmental impact, of having to gather raw materials.
- need an AC that points this out.
A. this is descriptively inaccurate.
B. When did we talk about effects of energy damage?
C. It does not deal with specific types of recycled products.
D. Bingo. Using recycled wood means we don't have to destroy the home of hundreds of squirrels.
E. This argument does not deal with cause-and-effect.
Important to pick an answer choice that is descriptively accurate.
- does it properly identify the specifics of the subject matter present within the argument? Does it properly identify the mechanism the argument relies on?
*Need to find an AC that undermines the notion that one can always provide a set of written instructions that makes it easier to assemble than without such instructions.
*
- what if the assembly is so easy that it would be more convoluted to explain it than it would be to just assemble without such instructions?
A. The principle never said such instructions would erase all difficulty, merely that they would make assembly less difficult than the alternative.
B. This appears compelling because it makes one think that such instructions would not be needed because the consumer themselves would not be assembling it.
- however, the argument is concerned with whether such instructions would make it easier for whoever does assemble the product.
C. This makes the norm so easy that it would be hard to make assembly easier with instructions.
D. If anything, this lends support to the idea that this principle is always followable. It will never be easier.
E. Don't need to always be used, just need to be easier anytime they are used.
In order to weaken this conclusion, which asserts the need to switch vaccine types, we need to muddy the idea that IPV is better than OPV as a whole.
- what if OPV is not perfect, but it has less downsides than IPV?
A. Due to the information provided in the stimulus, we know that OPV does not lead to any naturally occuring cases of polio, so this would present a relative drawback for IPV.
- creates another consideration that a switch would be beneficial.
B. If anything, this only furthers the attack on OPV, which is the opposite of our goal in weakening the conclusion.
C. Okay, this appears helpful to OPVs case, but we can't definitively say how this stacks up relative to IPV, which presents a problem for our goal of weakening the conclusion that a vaccine switch is needed.
D. It's irrelevant to consider preferences when the stimulus bases its conclusion on matters of effectiveness.
E. This hurts IPV, but because it says like most vaccines, its hard to determine whether this is truly a weakspot in relation to OPV.
Since this is a strengthen, we need to build up the idea that learning to produce characters more automatically helps one write better.
A. Okay, but this doesn't help build up the connnection between writing automatically AND better composition.
B. This is compelling, but it also draws on lessons from outside the program, so who is to say that these skills together weren't the result of another cause.
C. This helps affirm the connection mentioned in the conclusion, between writing automatically and better composition.
D. Not sure what this really contributes. It doesn't really get to the correlation/causation dynamic at play here.
E. This presents a reverse causation from the one that the argument seeks to affirm. Affirming this AC would weaken the argument.
The argument effectively states that heat is generated as a byproduct of the steel production process. Currently this heat is wasted and serves no purpose once it is generated. However, with the help of technology, this heat could be converted to electricity, which the plant could use to generate some of its own electricity, thus saving money.
- the saving money part is the conclusion, and the description of the tech serve as the premises.
- what must be true if the conclusion, which argues that these plants could save money, is true?
A. This is not a must be true; there might be other uses that are more impactful, but it does not destroy the idea that it could also be used to save money on electricity.
B. This one is not a must be true because the argument already hedges by making this bit explicit; in other words, this idea does not need to an assumption because it is explicitly developed in the argument when it states "if steel manufacturing plants could feed. . ."
- be careful when ideas that are explicitly stated are offered as necessary assumptions.
C. This is crucial, otherwise the whole idea that this tech could be used to save money; if the conclusion is true, you must be able to save money, meaning you can't spend more than you would save.
D.Not a must be true; even if there were zero plants that did not use electricity as primary source of energy, the could still save if they used any amount of electricity in the production process
- if the statement said "rely on electricity as at least one source of energy," then it would need to be true.
E. Not a must be true; always be weary of very strong words such as only.
- far too broadly argued.
I failed to see that the first argument made a correlation/causation flaw. It inferred that the rise in automobile emissions was causing public health risks to decrease.
The answer choice I chose seemed like it was following the pattern of "x occurence happens" alongside "y occurence that is beneficial", therefore any criticisms of x are unwarranted but it actually strays away from the structure of our argument in two ways.
- First, it bases its conclusion on actual action taken to safely regulate an industry, whereas ours only bases itself on the actual increase of the behavior deemed unsafe.
Secondly, it ties itself to progress within the specific industry that is the source of the problem and not progress within society at large. It is much narrower in focus.
I chose the correct answer in real time, but I second guessed in blind review and chose an answer that provides defensive support for the hypothesis against another potential explanation (drought) but does lend support to the particular mechanism the scientists point to as an explanation.
- The key to nearly all questions is to pick the one that provides the MOST support. Several answers here seemingly provide some support (E, C, B, A) but some of these only serve to acknowledge the existence of the termites, as E does, or to block droughts as the causal explanation (B, C)
- A provides the most support for the idea that its the termites causing the emergence of this phenomenon.
You may want to make sure that you aren't filtering out a portion of the games. By default, the system (at least on my end) filters out games that are within the clean, old PTs category. This means that you will only be able to see games from PTs 1-16. However, if you are attempting to retry an old game, either from the CC or a completed PT, make sure you are selecting the proper filter.
To create a drill with the game you referenced in your question, you would need to first make sure you are under the LG section, then hit the CC tab under the header "Preptests to show." Once you have filtered out games using that category, you can then type in the filter bar PT32 and then you will see the games section from that test. After that, just hit the plus sign to left of game 3 to create a drill.
Thank you for the detailed reply! I used to do the low res summaries when I was going through the CC, but I stopped doing so after realizing RC was one of my strengths.
However, lately I have regressed some on RC, with MP and INF questions being the weaker areas, so I think I am going to start doing the low res method again to see if that helps with mental organization.
What are some beneficial strategies for using scratch paper? Currently, I only use my scratch paper for LG diagramming and the occasional conditional that pops up on the LR section.
However, I am wondering if there are any other ways to use my scratch paper for the non-games sections. It seems like it could help digest certain passages in these sections. I would love to hear how others employ their scratch paper to its fullest potential.
The number one thing to focus on in RC is the actual comprehension aspect. Reading a passage in two minutes for the sake of reading it in two minutes is probably not a good strategy, because you will most likely fail to absorb the material enough to answer the questions without constantly needing to re-examine the passage.
I would say 4 minutes on the passage and 4 minutes on the questions for each passage is the best timing goal. This will still leave you with three minutes to spare for any last minute questions that you need to re-examine.
I think the main problem with such answer choices is that they are not supported by the nature of the passage. Each of the information is descriptive in nature, whereas the incorrect ACs are prescriptive.
It really depends on the nature of the ACs honestly. Whenever you see that the answer choices use words such as some, all, only, and other triggers of conditional logic, I would map out the original conditional phrasing to determine how the ACs fit into the original statements. A lot of time, the LSAT writers try to trip people up for confusing the necessary and sufficient conditions (the presence of the necessary condition does not mean you need the sufficient condition to be present).
Interested!
I think it has to do with the fact that it narrows in on the idea that bat calls "are the only means of finding each other." Maybe the bats could find each other through scent or body temperature or something of that sort. However, this argument completely denies such explanations from even being discussed.
So for these weakening questions, is the idea that we are really supposed to hone in on the premises that support the conclusion, and determine the weakness of the assumptions they make? Is that the best way to attack the support? #help
Don't cancel. Your fear that schools would see the previous 165 as lucky is most likely not the case. If anything, it will only further legitimize the fact that the 165 is indicative of your current test taking capacity.
You are, however, correct in assuming that law schools will read a score cancellation as a move to eliminate one that is much worse than a 165 (and presumably less than the 158 you first scored).