This is one I should have gotten right.

I feel like the only way C negated might stand a chance at wrecking the argument is if you read it as, "Different corporations don't have any different core philosophies."

The argument is basically, "Hey, there's a correlation between A and B. But there are instances where A happens and B doesn't, and vice versa, so therefore A doesn't cause B."

In my head I was thinking, "Yeah but correlation allows for instances that don't conform! That doesn't invalidate the correlation!"

Problem is the argument wasn't saying the correlation doesn't exist; it's just saying A doesn't cause B. Needless to say I was a little befuddled when looking at the answer choices.

What I should have been thinking after reading the stimulus was, "Okay, so they're saying A is correlated with B, but because of yada-yada-yada, A doesn't cause B. What if something else causes B?" That would have primed me in the right direction.

Just kind of jotting down some notes here as to why this question's hard.

1. There's an existential relationship, as well as an argument, in the stimulus that's difficult to fully appreciate in the limited time available.

2. After diagramming the stimulus, the flaw's easy enough to see (I don't have the exact citation right now but this is one of the classic invalid arguments), however the correct answer choice is worded like gibberish.

Got this question wrong during my timed run, I think, because I thought the answer was going to be more complicated than it was.

Lol. My blind review notes say, "It's E. That's just such a NA answer. 'In at least some.' Negate it and everything falls apart."

D seemed right in the moment. Then upon blind review I realized Terry already accounted for answer choice D in his argument.

Questions like these are an example of why the LSAT will always be a hard test. No amount of studying is going to make this question not hard.

Anyone else read, "As a result, the effectiveness of the weed-killer in a given situation is heavily influenced by which of the two forms is more concentrated in the soil..." and think, "What the heck? Why would the molecules of a certain weed-killer be present in the soil? Wouldn't they be in the weed killer?"

Let me get this straight. Just want to make sure I understand. From this:

"To generate the Koch curve, one begins with a straight line. The middle third of the line is removed and replaced with two line segments, each as long as the removed piece, which are positioned at the top so as to meet and form the top of a triangle...This process is repeated on the four segments so that all the protrusions are on the same side of the curve, and then the process is repeated indefinitely on the segments at each stage of the construction."

We can deduce this:

"At every stage of constructing the Koch curve, all the line segments composing it are of equal length."

Is that right?

Got #12 wrong. My biggest takeaway from that is look at all the support answer choice B has from the passage:

"To such men and women the humanities are useless because they serve no immediate and technological function for the practical survival of human society in the material world. Such pragmatists believe that the areas of morality, religion, and the arts should have only a secondary importance in people's lives."

Now where's the support for answer choice A?

Welp. I chose one of the crap answer choices. I thought C resolved the paradox fine. Why aren't the workers striking? Because when they look at everyone else's working conditions they think, "Gee, we've actually got it pretty good."

I still don't, for the life of me, understand why judges wouldn't be sincere in their decisions. Is that even an option for judges? "Oh yeah you don't have to mean what you say in your judicial decisions. Just say what you want and be done with it." What?! If judges don't believe what they say in their judicial decisions, THEN WHY ARE THEY DECIDING THAT WAY?

To me, the biggest assumption in this argument was exponential growth. "Since energy savings from these efficiencies save several billion dollars per year today, we can conclude that 50 to 100 years from now they will save more than $200 billion per year (calculated in current dollars)."

This made me think E was necessary, but I see now that was the trap answer choice. Which one, if negated, is going to wreak greater havoc on the argument? A or E? A, no doubt.

I got this answer wrong because I didn't trust my gut. I had A selected, then thought "No, the LSAT's tricking me. It can't be that simple." and chose E. It's almost like I set a trap for myself! JY's right. This is totally a psychological test.

Moral of the story: Sometimes on the LSAT, yes, it can be that simple. Don't be afraid to trust your gut.

This question was a time hole for me, indeed. What hung me up was I didn't realize that not all vaccines create permanent immunity (Some do though! So I feel like my hang up was valid. 😊).

Having that in mind, A makes sense as to why it's the right answer choice. A is saying, "Wait a minute. You're saying this will create permanent immunity, but most of the people who contract hepatitis E are young adults who were exposed to the virus as a child. Presumably these peoples' immune systems created antibodies then, but they still contracted the virus many years later. Why would your vaccine be any different?"

What makes B such an attractive wrong answer choice is the statement, "If there were really such a thing as extrasensory perception, it would generally be accepted by the public..." sounds a lot like saying, "extrasensory perception, if it were a real phenomenon, could be demonstrated to the satisfaction of all skeptics."

I see how it's not now, but I still fell for it in the moment.

Oh man. My notes (pre-scoring) say, "B, C, D, and E are all reasons why France shouldn't hold foreign-policy referenda."

I think I got this question wrong for two reasons:

1. I didn't narrow my vision to just the argument that Lorraine was making, and how to weaken it, and as such...

2. I tried to strengthen Claude's argument. It's like I unconsciously thought that, since they don't agree, strengthening Claude's argument is the same as weakening Lorraine's. Yeah, it's not.

I thought the proposition that "frogs are definitely related to the species of fish from which human beings evolved" served as a premise to the arguments that both scientists were making.

Going off of JY's definition of assumption as an "unstated premise," I immediately eliminated D, because this was obviously stated.

As I think about it though, perhaps that definition is more applicable only to certain question types. Also, there wasn't really any evidence given to support the claim that "frogs are definitely related to the species of fish from which human beings evolved," so maybe it that sense it is an assumption.

I chose D because I thought the answer implied the camels were ravaged by disease when they congregated together again.

Anybody else gloss over the "not" in answer choice B? 🤦🏻‍♂️

One common thread I'm noticing in all the answer choices I'm getting wrong? A failure to read closely.

Have to tip my hat to the test takers on this one.

After reading the stimulus, before looking at the answer choices, I was thinking, "Hmm. What's a principle that's going to justify this conclusion. How about if there's a helpful technique that can be taught to adults that can also be taught to children, then it should be taught to children."

Then they slid answer choice B in there, which is very similar to what I pre-phrased, except they reversed the terms and I didn't catch it!

You got me. Well done.

Hey everyone,

I was really struggling to articulate why B is wrong and why it's such an attractive trap answer choice, and I think I got a better handle on it by going back to JY's definition of an assumption as an unstated premise.

The argument's this:

[P1] Because they're striving to develop commercially viable technology

[P2/SC] People responsible for technological advances are motivated by considerations of personal gain rather than societal benefit

[C] Therefore technological innovation rarely serves the interests of society as a whole

Now given that an assumption is an unstated premise, add in answer choice B and see how the argument looks:

[P1] Because they're striving to develop commercially viable technology

[P2/SC] People responsible for technological advances are motivated by considerations of personal gain rather than societal benefit

[Answer choice B] Plus technology beneficial to society as a whole can't be commercially viable

[C] Therefore technological innovation rarely serves the interests of society as a whole

Hm. Okay. Now compare that with what happens when we add in answer choice D instead:

[P1] Because they're striving to develop commercially viable technology

[P2/SC] People responsible for technological advances are motivated by considerations of personal gain rather than societal benefit

[Answer choice D] Plus an action is unlikely to produce a certain outcome unless it is motivated by a desire to produce that outcome

[C] Therefore technological innovation rarely serves the interests of society as a whole

Boom. There it is. I won't say that necessarily seals the deal and makes the argument valid, but the conclusion certainly follows more naturally with D inserted as a premise instead of B.

Answer choice B in question #25 is such a trap answer choice, a trap answer choice that I fell for nevertheless.

Look at what it does. It uses the words "thrift" and "temperance" to get us to think, "Hey, I recognize those words from the passage!" and then provides us with information that seems plausible enough to have been in the passage.

The passage never characterized the management class, though. It kind of feels like it did, but it didn't. See how they try to trick us there?

Fighting the LSAT. Not the best use of one's study time. I know. Plus I totally see why A is right.

Nevertheless, as someone who chose B I feel compelled to defend my answer choice.

Is the philosopher not making a tacit argument that:

[P1] Because wolves do not tolerate an attack by one wolf on another if the latter wolf demonstrates submission by baring its throat

[P2] And because the same is true of foxes and domesticated dogs

[C] Therefore animals are capable of obeying moral rules and thus possess some form of morality.

Might be a bit of a stretch there to go from wolves, foxes, and domesticated dogs to all animals, but that implicit argument is what lead me to choose B.

Anyone else feel like the test makers just arbitrarily decide whether a line in an AP question is going to be context or a premise?

Me doing an AP question: "Oh, this is definitely context."

Test makers: "Nope. Sorry, it's a premise supporting the argument's conclusion."

Me doing a very similar AP question: "Oh, this is clearly a premise. I've learned my lesson from before."

Test makers: "Ope. Nope. Sorry. Wrong again. This time it's just context."

😡

I also got #8 wrong and there's a couple things I'm noting here. First I chose answer choice C and then changed my answer to A during blind review.

C feels like a trap answer choice in that it uses the words "diction, rhythm, and sonority" to try and allure your into choosing it. You think, like I thought, "Hey! Those are fancy-sounding words that I recognize from passage! I'll choose that answer choice!" Wrong.

Two things make E right, and one of those makes it a better answer choice than A. The passage says, "Cullen preferred controlled poetic forms. He used European forms such as sonnets and devices such as quatrains...." Both answer choices address this by saying first, "a sonnet written with careful attention to the conventions of the form..."

The passage also says, "...Cullen strove to establish himself as an author of romantic poetry on abstract universal topics such as love and death." This is what E speaks to much, much better than A. What's a more abstract universal topic? Sixteenth-century English poetry, or the inevitability of death? Hmmmmm. I think the inevitability of death.