- Joined
- Feb 2026
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
A: Correct because minority workers are excluded from unions, and they make less in the same job than union members. This is supported in the passage, "craft unionism increases the (50) differential between the wages of White workers and Black workers due to the traditional exclusion of minority workers from unions in the craft sectors of the labor market". If there is a white worker and a black worker that are both in a craft profession, but the white worker can be in a union and the black worker can't, but the white worker makes more, then A needs to be true.
B: "sharply" is unsupported
C: we don't know if they rose faster or more steadily, there could have been a huge jump. this doesn't have to be true.
D: the author believes both are affected because it reduces the spread of unions and therefore reduces wages for everyone
E: there is no evidence in the passage to support this, they could both rise at the same rate we don't know
A: WRONG it does not have to be true that the rate of inflation rose. The rate of inflation can stay the same. Lets say inflation is 10% and rate of return on the most profitable investment is 5%. 10-5=5, so at a minimum you are losing 5% each year. Lets say you invest in a stock that was 4% and now its 3%. The rate of inflation can stay the same, it was just your investment that changed.
B: WRONG the key here is the word "profit". Your investment % could change but maybe you still get paid the same amount each month. Maybe its still just as profitable for you and the % changed because other people bought or sold, but you keep making the same amount of money. Your market share can grow / shrink but can also stay the same relative to how things are growing and shrinking around it.
C: RIGHT, most profitable investment is 5% and inflation is 6% 6-5=1. If you are investing in something that is 6% but then it falls 1%, its now less profitable than the most profitable investment available. It has to be true that if inflation is higher than the most profitable investment, and a different investment falls by the difference, then the investment is going to be less profitable than the most profitable investment available. The difference between this one and B is because profit is used as a relative measure between inflation, most profitable, and other investment. In B its only profit in relation to one singular investment.
D: WRONG we don't know this, the rate of return on the most profitable investment can stay the same and this would be true
E: WRONG, we can't infer this. we just know the other investment is changing and its going down, not that the most profitable investment changed at all
A: WRONG because this means there is a larger workforce after the famine because people are dying slower, which contributes to the explanation of why their wages didn't go up
B: WRONG because if 50% of people died or left, but most couldn't work anyways, then it helps contribute to the explanation of why the wages didn't go up
C: WRONG This is like AI taking over everyones jobs, which contributes to the explanation of why the wages didn't go up. They didn't need to bribe people to work for them bc they can have technology do it.
D: RIGHT, newborns probably aren't working. This contributes less than the other answer choices do. A child being born in 1859 would be 1 year old by the end of the decade, they probably aren't earning a wage and working at that point.
E: WRONG This provides an explanation of why the wages are so low, they were set by England. This contributes to the explanation of why the wages didn't go up.
Paradox: How come the scientific community accepts the flood theory even though scientists still do not know of a process that can melt so much ice so quickly? Why are the scientists saying there was a flood when they don't even know of a way the flood would have been able to happen?
A: WRONG, the stimulus says "The channels do show physical evidence of having been formed quickly". This is just a type of that physical evidence, but we are looking for an explanation of the process by which the channels were made.
B: Irrelevant, knowing this fact about the Gulches and other rock formations doesn't help us explain how the channels came to be / why the scientists believe this new theory.
C: Irrelevant, one single large glacier could have led to the same result
D: irrelevant, the paradox still exists regardless of if it was easy or hard to cut the volcanic rock
E: CORRECT, this gives an explanation of the process by which the channels could have formed, which resolves the paradox of why the scientists believe this new theory
A: Wrong because this does not help us weaken the idea that the only way to gain market share is through purchasing competitors rather than marketing. It is not relevant what types of carpets or floor coverings are being marketed because the act of marketing does not prove that it is or is not growing their market share.
B: Wrong for a similar reason to A. Knowing that companies market different brands and varieties of carpets does not help us weaken the idea that companies can only gain market share through purchasing competitors and not marketing. Marketing various names and varieties could help them gain market share or not, we don't know.
C: Decline in profits and revenues is not the same thing as market share. They could have a greater market share, and this could still be the only way to gain market share while being true.
D: If dominant firms (maybe walmart) are making their carpet so cheap other companies can't compete and have to stop selling carpet, then this is an alternative way that walmart could gain a greater market share in the carpet market. Kinda unethical to drive people out of the business, but it provides another option to gaining market share from purchasing competitors (just force them to leave).
E: Wrong because new patters and styles / consumer opinion is not relevant to the connection between the premises and conclusion. This answer seems like its trying to get you to make some sort of connection between aggressive marketing and new patterns and styles, but in reality this answer choice does not help us weaken the idea that you have to gain market share through buying competitors. Consumers not liking new styles doesn't really matter since they only buy new carpet twice anyways, and they could be in any style, we don't know and we also don't care.
every time i try to play an explanation video it plays for 1-2 mins before the side window disappears and I have to click on it to open again. The discussion tab does the same thing, I can only read a sentence or two before the side tab goes away and I have to reopen it. Does anyone know how to fix this? I'm about to go back to lsat demon because it is getting so annoying and taking up so much time. is it a wifi issue? a spyware issue from lsat writing? I'm so frustrated
@stacyduong18918 Hi! The author says in the final paragraph towards the end "Cohesiveness of the decision-making group is an essential antecedent condition for this syndrome but not a sufficient one". This essentially means whenever there is groupthink, it has to occur in a cohesive group, not a non-cohesive group. This would logically look like; if groupthink -> the group has cohesiveness. To strengthen a conditional, one of the best strengtheners is the contrapositive. The contrapositive can be found when you negate both sides of the conditional and switch them, so it would look like this; If the group is not cohesive, then there is not groupthink. OR If not cohesive -> no groupthink.
C says there were no cases of groupthink in groups where members distrust one anothers judgements. We can assume that if the members are distrusting of each other, that the group is not cohesive. As evidence in the passage, look at the first sentence, "In principle, a cohesive group—one whose members generally agree with one another and support one another's judgments—can do a much better job at decision making than it could if it were noncohesive. When cohesiveness is low or lacking entirely, compliance out of fear of recrimination is likely to be strongest. "
The author contrasts a trusting, cohesive group with a noncohesive one. We can infer that the other group (noncohesive) would be a group where people don't agree with one another and/or support each others judgements.
C is right because it uses the contrapositive to support the author's argument. C essentially says if there is not groupthink, then there is not cohesiveness. Another way to think about this is if we take the contrapositive of C, it's pretty much exactly the same as the author's argument. The question asks which of the following if true would support the author's view. If we get an answer choice that is the same the author's view, then if that's true it just means the author's POV is true and that would support the author's view really well!
idk lawgic, but here are the steps of how to get the right answer without it:
think about what you can logically conclude from what we are given. the stimulus says, "No occupation should be subject to a licensing requirement (think of this as the main point of the statement. the author believes overall that we should not require licensing) UNLESS (indicates an exception to the rule) incompetence in the performance of tasks normally carried out within that occupation poses a plausible threat to human health or safety."
we can conclude that if there is no threat to human health or safety, we don't need the license. or if we need the license, there is a threat to human health or safety. We can't conclude that we need a license because there could be other requirements to needing a license (maybe your employer needs to sponsor you, you need to pass a test to be eligible, etc).
knowing this, we can eliminate c, d, and e because they all conclude that someone needs a license when we can only conclude that a person does not need a license with the information given. all three of these answer choices pray on the sufficient necessary flaw.
a is wrong bc of the word "some"
B is right because we can conclude if no threat then no license. the default is the rule that no occupation needs a license. the exception is not fulfilled (threat to human safety) so we can conclude based on the principle that interior designers should not need a license.
as someone who started studying after logic games were removed, how do you solve sequencing games? if this shows up on the test I'll be able to solve it but it will just take 20 mins #help
@Livtpmartins Hi! Not sure if this helps, but in the stimulus, threats to the national identity are a little different than the social problems. We are trying to weaken the idea that modern culture threatens national identities. What is the evidence for this? Fringe movements are increasing. When the evidence is laid out like this, it's easy to see how wide the gap is from the evidence to the conclusion (Fringe movements (X) are increasing, therefore modern culture (Y) threatens national identities (Z)). The commentator is assuming that fringe movements are a part of modern culture, and that these two things are threatening national identities. We don't really even have any evidence that fringe movements are related to modern culture at all. And if these two things are not related, we for sure don't have evidence that modern culture threatens national identities.
B is right because if a stable national identity consists of lots of subcultures, then we know that these subcultures don't have to threaten the national identity, this weakening the argument.
E is wrong because if true, it doesn't move the needle on the argument. Knowing that a solid national identity tends to have more social problems just lists a problem for countries with a stable / solid identity. The argument is focused on the gap between the premises and conclusion. Its different than B because B gets directly at the subcultures (fringe movements) that are mentioned in the evidence. The social problems mentioned in E don't directly get at the gap between the premises / conclusion. The issue is not social problems in general, the issue is that the commentator thinks that subgroups forming in a country threaten national identities.
B is right because if the specialists are making accurate judgements, then it confirms the need for the drugs. If B is true then we know that the drugs have a reason to be there.
C is wrong because being completely healed is not relevant to this argument. I picked C because I thought that if drugs and PT could 100% heal at least one person, then it reconciled the part of the argument that says "only as well as". I was focusing on the wrong part of the argument when selecting this answer. Argument is mainly concerned with reconciling "How come these people need drugs + PT but these other people only need PT, and the drugs are important?" and not "How come the combination of drugs and PT makes patients only do as well as those who receive PT alone?" C is focusing on the wrong paradox, B is focused on answering the correct question.
For those struggling with B, I felt stupid getting this wrong too. B is wrong because we don't have the causal reasoning in the passage necessary to prove this conclusion. If you diagram the last sentence we have dismissed -> undermine, which would contrapositive to not undermine -> not weaken. This is not what B says at all, B could be diagrammed to public debate -> strengthen public faith. These two ideas aren't related when broken down, even though they seem like they are the same topic. Additionally, if we follow the logic presented in the last paragraph, one person's opinion being dismissed within the "public debate" mentioned in B would make it so that the public faith is weakened, not strengthened. This loophole in B makes it wrong. C is a much better final sentence because it gets at the idea that each person's opinion matters to the system's functioning as it is supposed to.
For those struggling with the video / written explanations;
B is analogous to characterizing the piccaro as the trickster, when deeper understanding shows it actually to be related to moral lessons (instead of satires). If you miss the detail of picaros being involved in satires, and tricksters being involved with moral lessons then B will not make sense because there is an extra category at the end.
D is wrong because it has two categories, pine trees and evergreens. The subject at issue is a SPECIES OF PINE TREE. For this to be right, the passage would need to be talking about a TYPE OF PICARO. For example "a type of picaro is classified as a type of trickster even though its related to satire". This isn't the author's view. We are talking about the actual broader categories of picaro and trickster, not the subtypes. Think about LR and sufficient / necessary. The author isn't trying to say that being associated with moral stories is sufficient to being a trickster, there are other characters involved in moral stories that may or may not be a trickster. Also, being related to satire isn't the only difference between the two answers. B is much better because it doesn't hinge on just one difference, it says "deeper understanding shows it to be related to the raccoon" but that could be because of any number of reasons so it is a better match to the author's view.
A is wrong because the conclusion is only about male cats, not all cats. It can't weaken the argument about male cats since A is about female cats.
For those struggling with A, this is how I narrowed it down to C from a 50/50. I asked myself what is this Columnist trying to prove? That it is best TO take a strong opinion or NOT TO take a strong opinion. The Columnist is trying to prove that we should NOT take a strong opinion (conclusion in the last sentence indicated by thus). A is trying to support that it IS reasonable to take a strong position, which is different than what the stimulus is trying to support. C is trying to support that we should NOT take a strong position on something, which aligns more closely with what the conclusion is trying to prove in the Columnist statements.
"huge fat obese rabbit" LOL I'd have to move clans