On answer choice E you actually cannot even negate the sufficient because what we know from the stimulus is that P australis is just back to its normal numbers, but we have no idea if normally there are large quantities of them or normally there are small quantities of them. So in fact, E is just outside of the ballpark in general. However, compare this to answer choice B in which they say "extraordinarily large." By saying "extraordinarily large" they are not saying that the P australis population is large but rather that it is larger than usual! This is why answer choice B does not fall susceptible to the same failure as answer E.

This question took me a while because C rests on the assumption that the "some sugar substitutes" in answer choice C were the same substitutes used in the experiment. Some could very easily mean "one" and then we still would have to prove that that "one" substitute was the one that we used in our experiment. Nevertheless, it is way more relevant to weakening the argument than the other answer choices and so I picked it. C would have been a much clearer answer choice had they said that "all sugar substitutes exacerbate hyperactivity"

not to mention that C classifies the ideas as "innovative" when clearly the author seems to side with Haraway in her rejection of the traditional scientific historical approach that includes such ideas.

Good thing I had no clue wtf highbrow and lowbrow meant otherwise I might have actually gotten a good score!

Answer choice makes a huge stretch in that the stimulus says "mitters are easier on most car finishes than brushes." We cannot determine from this that they usually do not scratch the old cars. Brushes could totally scratch tf out of every car that comes through the wash and mitters could be just one tiny scratch"easier on most cars" than the brushes. In this we could not say they "usually do not scratch the older cars." AC C would be much better if it said " modern brushless cars produce less scratches on old cars than mitters." Nonetheless it is a most strongly supported question and I can see why C is the most supported.

#help is there even a conclusion in this argument is it just "this is not surprising"??? JY says "this is the conclusion" in the video and then draws a line but I cannot tell what he is talking about in the video.

Almost missed this one because I did not know what "amenable" meant. Is the LSAT a vocabulary test or logic test haha? Luckily I could eliminate all the wrong answers and more confidently chose B.

I think a better explanation of why D is wrong is because the stimulus' conclusion says "raising the minimum wage SIGNIFICANTLY will cause an increase in unemployment." With answer choice D, the workers could be earning one cent more than minimum wage in which case D does nothing to weaken. I think the trap with D is that they want you to think that increasing the minimum wage requirement will not do anything to increase unemployment because the wages for most workers are already "higher than minimum wage", but the key is we do not know what the "more than the current minimum wage" is that most workers "earn" with answer choice D.

I hear what you are saying but I think the key is that we are not trying to make the argument bulletproof, we are just trying to strengthen it. You totally raise a valid point that A does not make the argument in the stimulus sound but try to stay on task with the "strengthen." If you do that, you can still see that A would in fact strengthen the argument to some extent, and more than the other answers. It is a tough question!

I hear what you are saying but that is the key is that the stimulus never explicitly stated that the participants were eating fruits and vegetables, it has to be assumed. It only mentions that lycopene is found in fruit, but we have to draw the assumption that the participants are in fact eating fruits and vegetables in order for a to weaken. If the participants never ate fruits and veggies then it would not matter if fruits and veggies had other stroke preventing compounds because our participants may or may not be eating fruit but we do not know.

I agree with everything you stated but only under the pretext that we have to assume that the participants were eating fruits and veggies for A to weaken in the way that you suggest.

#help

I feel like answer choice A rests on the assumption that the people in the study were receiving their lycopene from fruits and vegetables. The stimulus does not say that lycopene is found "only in some fruits and vegetables." If it had then we can draw the assumption necessary for A to weaken the argument. The stimulus instead says lycopene is found in "some fruits and vegetables," leaving open the possibility that other sources also may contain lycopene. Let's say the people in the study that had higher lycopene levels were taking supplements of lycopene (a scenario that is totally possible based on the information in the stimulus), then A would not weaken because the fact that most fruits and veggies have other stroke reducing factors could be irrelevant because our study participants got their lycopene from somewhere besides fruit and veggies.

Although D rests on an assumption which is that fruits and veggies have some stroke reducing agent, it at leasts confirms that the participants in the study were in fact eating fruits and veggies.

#help... If A is true, then that means that the results from the study are not necessarily representative of accidents in general. Essentially, more than half of your data (10,000 accidents) would be skewed towards accidents in which "very high speed limit" could have played a roll in the accident. Very high speed limit may or may not be a factor in all car accidents as a whole, but we cannot take this alternative factor (very high speed limit) for granted in the more than 50% of our data. This would weaken the argument by weakening the reliability of the survey as it relates to the conclusion, as an alternative factor (very high speed limit) may affect how well large and or small cars handle car accidents.

I think this is a B.S. LSAT question to be honest, they are literally playing with grammar tricks in the stimulus's conclusion. The conclusion could be read in one of two ways:

1) The wrong way to read it: "thus someone in a car accident is less likely to be injured if one drives a large car." In which case the answer D does NOTHING to weaken.

2) The way LSAT intends it to be read: "thus any person who drives a big car, is less likely to get in a car accident involving injury" In which case we can see that D more clearly weakens the argument.

Great explanation. I agree, "if" statements like this are quite unusual in every day english.

I could not agree more. I sat with this question for way longer than I should have because none of the answers is truly a disagreement. You said it perfectly, we have no idea what Talbert's stance is on teaching kids chess, only that children knowing chess promotes mental maturity. This does NOT explicitly mean Talbert thinks children should be taught to play chess, maybe Talbert believes teaching anyone anything is against his religion (it is the religion of do everything by yourself with no instruction from others) and so even though chess promotes mental maturity no one should teach it to kids they just need to figure it out and learn on their own. Obviously this is a stretch of an example but we cannot take anything for granted on the LSAT.

#help I do not see why answer C is wrong.

If "there are differences of opinion about what constitutes winning and losing a debate" (answer choice C), then it would be said that winning a debate is subjective (just like JY pointed out). If this is the case, then the conclusion does not follow because we cannot ever truly determine who "won" the debate therefore we cannot conclude that "winning a debate does little to bolster ones chances of winning an election"; no-one can necessarily win a debate in the first place.

I guess the only thing is this is a "weaken" question not a "destroy the argument question" and C does not weaken the relation between premise and conclusion but hopefully someone else can chime in and help

I did not pick E because I thought it formed "too strong of a bridge." It could really be a sufficient assumption answer choice and so I thought it was a trap answer and did not pick it. Any help on avoiding this kind of mistake in the future???

#help (Added by Admin)

#help on AC C!!

AC C mentions that the checkerspot can adapt to a wide range of temperatures and geographic locations. Yes, I agree that the portion of the answer choice regarding the adaptability to a wide range of temperatures would in fact weaken the argument, however, the ability to adapt to a wide range of geographic locations supports the argument (this would support the argument because if the checkerspot can adapt to a wide range of geographic locations then they are more likely to move from the south to the north [aka different geographic locations] when the climate changes). Therefore, I find it quite difficult to select answer choice C as a "support except answer" as part of the answer seems to weaken the argument but the other part of it supports the argument.

I think A can be much more easily eliminated because you take "some" in absolute terms to mean "one" and it quickly becomes clear that if the answer choice A is true and the politicians only discuss one of the same issues, the answer gives no support to Maria's response to James and can therefore be eliminated.

Its been so long since I made that first comment I did not realize looking back at it today that D was the correct answer I just responded to you without checking and assumed my mention of C in the comment was an indicator that it was the correct answer. You are absolutely right. Thanks for clearing up some confusion (hahah hopefully it helped you learn by responding to me)

Honestly I am not sure we are on the same page. What I was noting is that, for example, if the nesting boxes that people put up were the size of a swimming pool and the natural nesting sites were the size of a shoebox, then technically nesting boxes for wood ducks would in fact have more space (volume) for eggs than natural sites. However, the stimulus discusses the available open space through its reference of "crowded." Back to the pool and shoe box example; the pool could be packed full of eggs such that no more eggs can be added, but the shoe box only is partially full (leaving the other part open for more eggs), therefore, the pool has more space (volume) for eggs but less open space for eggs than the shoe box. Yes C is the best answer choice but I still think it is flawed. Of course this is an MSS question so it does not need to be foolproof but it sure does deter me from the answer if I detect that it is flawed

This one is hard because "transferee" is not defined the same as "transfer". I was thinking of a transferee as a student transferring schools and therefore its only one party transferring themselves but this is wrong. Here is how the internet explains "transferee":

"Any party who is receiving title or custody of the delivery would be considered a transferee, any party who relinquishes title or custody would be considered a transferor"

Here, it becomes much clearer that transferee (AC D) is not the right choice.

NA: "If the psychologists conclusion is properly drawn, then the principle is true."

SA: "If the principle is true, then the conclusion is properly drawn."

Q4: "Which one of the following principles must be assumed in order for the psychologist's conclusion to be properly drawn?"

The key phrase is "must be assumed," aka it is necessary to the argument.

A SA stem would read "the psychologists conclusion is properly drawn if which one of the following principles is assumed"

I think D is a valid answer choice in that it does nothing to resolve the issue. The perceived importance of the election does not inform us of voting behavior on the day of the election. To eliminate answer choice D on the grounds that "oh less of Panitch's supporters think the election is important so less of Panitch's supporters are going to turn up to vote" is just wrong. Could the perceived importance play a roll in it, maybe, but maybe is not good enough to eliminate it as an answer. I completely agree that answer choice A does not resolve the issue but i also know that answer choice D does not resolve the issue. I also understand that this just a "most helps to resolve" not "resolve" so there is some fluidity, I just think that in order to eliminate answer choice D you have to make a MASSIVE jump from perceived importance to not turning up to vote, especially when importance is a relatively subjective measurement and it is being qualified based on ambiguous and subjective terms such as "very" (very important).

JY makes a HUGE mistake in analyzing AC D. He says that the conclusion talks about "attending live performances" but it does not it says "hearing live performances". IDK about you guys but I can HEAR live performances without ever having attended them (the internet, Spotify, etc.). As such, answer choice D wrecks the argument. If they are HEARING recordings of actual public concerts every time they play the records, and they like the records, then they LIKE HEARING LIVE PERFORMANCES. Just because they are not actually at the live performance does not make it impossible for them to hear the live performance (even though it may be at some later time on a recording). There are other ways to hear live performances without being in attendance and answer choice D exposes this.

Why is D wrong then?

#help