Actually, no. Because "to the extent that" is signalling a proportionality relationship between aesthetically pleasing and whether or not the arrangement of objects reflects the creator's intention. So more of A ----> more of B or less of A -----> less of B. This does not equate to less of B ----> less of A or more of B----> more of A.

However, if we replace "to the extent" that with "if", then there is no proportionality relationship between AP and reflect Intention. And it will be a standard conditionality relationship: reflect intention -> AP. If one of the AC gives you /AP-> /Reflect Intention, then it should be correct.

But, just like what JY explained about answer choice B, B got the two things in reverse. less of B ------> less of A. And of course, B is also wrong because its premise is a comparative statement.

i am interested. Please DM me.

Am I the only one who didn't link up "habitat" and "eating behaviour" together? The earthworm could have lived somewhere else other than the leaf litters but likes to consume leaf litters. Damn it.

Have you tried Ellen Cassidy's way to do this type of question? Her method is like JY's SA method of building a bridge between two ideas. Her method is Phenomenon 1 ---- Resolution ----- Phenomenon 2. So, the resolution is like a bridge between the two phenomena.

I'm interested

I'm interested. From Vancouver.

do we still have a zoom lesson today?

I have problems seeing the support from premise to conclusion, and I guess I disagree with JY's explanation on why C is wrong. Please do correct me if I'm wrong.

Premise: On average, people are only willing to pay 2/3 of the actual price of the gifts chosen by others (including friends, family, etc.)

Conclusion: Gift cards are more highly valued by recipients than are gifts chosen for them by others.

So, here is a scenario, one is willing to pay $3 on the gift chosen by relatives and close friends and $1 on gifts chosen by non-relatives and non--close friends when gifts are $3 (for the sake of demonstration and is in line with the premise). In this scenario, one cannot conclude that gift cards are more highly valued all the time. One can concludes that sometimes gift cards are more highly valued than the actual gifts.

I chose C) because I thought by pointing out that ,in the study, one could have been paying more or equivalent to the value of gifts given by relatives and close friends, it helps to weaken the support from the premise to the conclusion.

However, C) didn't specify how much more people are willing to pay for the gifts chosen by relatives and close friends. And because of that, there could be no one who is willing to pay more or equivalent to the value of gifts given by relatives. ex. $2.50 for a gift worth $3. Since the question stem states most seriously weakens, D) weakens the argument better than C) because it's less ambiguous than C.

you will have to assume "getting alone with each other" has beneficial effects to society.

"deleted"

I interpreted A as follows:

"highlighting the differences": one is a work of art, the other one is not a work of art.

"things that are believed to have certain property": Warhol's Brillo Boxes because these are visually indistinguishable to the actual ones and may cause people to believe those are actually from Brillo.

"things that actually have that property": the product packaging of an actual brand of scouring pads. (aka actual Brillo boxes)

The problem here is that I assumed people believe Warhol's Brillo boxes are actually Brillo's boxes produced by Brillo. We simply don't know that. Perhaps people already knew that Warhol's Brillo boxes are simply replica. Thus, this AC cannot be correct.

I knew the flaw, but couldn't find the answer to match it. Sigh....

amazing, thank you!

Thank you for being awesome.

Hi Nina,

I know this is late, but if you read the passage closely, you will realize that the premises don't fit the term "suitable mechanism".

Premise 1: Bats' calls are their only means of finding one another.

Premise 2: A bat pup cannot distinguish the call of its mother from that of any other adult bat.

Both above premises are more like observations from author or facts that was gathered by author. Just like you said, the usage of mother bat's ability to recognize the call of her pup should be considered a mechanism, but unfortunately that is the hypothesis/author's conclusion, which doesn't describe by AC C.

In my opinion, for premise 1 to be sounded like "mechanism", it should states like "Bats use their calls to find each other." rather than stressing on the point that their only means of finding one another is by calling. I think premise 2 is pretty clear that it is an observation.

So, for AC C to be correct, it should states "support, on the basis of the author's observations, the hypothesis that a certain phenomenon can occur."

Let me know if anything I said is incorrect.

Thanks.

Initially, I chose A because I misread the word, "these" in line 3.

I thought "become aware of these"(line 3) means being aware that human beings' cognitive faculties are superior than other animals (lines 1-2) because I thought the word "these" is referring to the whole previous sentence. But no, I was too naive. "These" referring to more than one things that's why it uses "these" instead of "this". So, clearly, "these" is referring to the cognitive faculties embodied by human beings. The last sentence even gives us the hint.

Aside from laughing at Uranus, D is actually quite tricky.

D) is wrong. First of all, we know that Uranus is moving in an opposite direction of the sun (lines 2-3 away from the Sun). In other words, it is moving in a specific direction, not a random one. Now let's look at D, if the sun is exerting insufficient force on Uranus to make it not moving away, would Uranus or any planet in the similar position moves in the opposite direction of the sun. Well, we don't know. In fact, if we do, we are making up assumptions which is not good for answering LSAT questions.

In addition, even if the planet the sun exerted weaker forces on is drifting in the direct opposite direction of the sun on its own, we still didn't explain what is pulling Uranus (line 1). If you say: well nothing is pulling the planet, then you are contradicting the observation/phenomenon stated in the passage.

TL;DR

If you think D is the correct answer, then you are assuming 1) whatever the planet like Uranus which have weaker forces exerted on by the sun will drift away from the sun (not left or right), 2) nothing, and absolutely nothing is pulling Uranus away from the sun.

28

D) Anyone can file any kind of lawsuit with the bad intentions. Just because there are many people filing lawsuits against the company doesn't mean the statistic of 3.2 injuries per 200,000 hours is falsely stated by the manager. Since we don't know legitimate those filed lawsuits are, we can't say there might be more than 3.2 injuries per 200,000 hours. Therefore, this AC is wrong.

Hi hope it is not too late to help you understand why B is incorrect.

We should focus on the support between 3.2 injuries per 200,000 hours (premise) and nuclear power plant is safer than most other plants (conclusion).

B) is wrong because it doesn't show us why the statistic stated by the manager is false. I could have workers report on average 3.2 injuries per 200,000 hours, right? In that case, it is complying with the argument in the question. But B) doesn't state any statistics, we can't assume the workers reported more than 3.2 injuries per 200,000 hours. Since we can't assume anything from this answer choice, we really don't know how it is going to weaken the argument in the question. Thus, we eliminate it.

Hang in there, brother. I'm on the same boat as you. Aim for T14 and achieve your dream.

Hi Philip,

The first sentence in the stimulus describe what plowing pigweed looks like - churned up then redeposited. So if the pigweed field is being plowed at night, the pigweed seeds are also redeposited back under the surface at night (no exposure to the sunlight).

congrats

Count me in!

Had 3 LR. I think I screwed up big time....couldn't finish LR. sigh...