Paradox: Mosquitoes typically increase in wet environemtns and we can reasonably assume that when it is not wet, then they generally decrease.

However, in wetland habitats, the opposite occurs. Outbreaks of mosquito diseases are even greater in times where there is a drought.

C is correct because if wetland habitats have a lot of aquatic insects that prey on mosquitos, and these aquatic insects obviously need water, and drought doesn't have that much water, then the predators of the mosquitos are decreasing. If there are not enough predators, then the mosquito populations will grow and this will most likely contribute to the outbreak of mosquito diseases in these wetland environments during a drought. This resolves the paradox.

OPA: Communication devices in cars are dangerously distracting.

Premise: Because people who want to use communication devices will do so regardless and our devices are easier which makes them safer.

Conclusion: OPA is wrong. Not dangerously distracting.

First off, how is it that they will do it regardless support the contention that it is not dangerous? Just because someone will smoke cigarettes regardless of a tax does not mean that it is not dangerous? Also, just because something is easier does not make it safer. It actually might be that something being easier makes it less safe. If I can easily access my phone while driving, I will probably do it more often and it probably won't help me concentrate on driving, hence distract me, so how is that safer?

The author is dismissing the real reasons as to what will make it distracting. That is why B is correct. Because the author fails to address the OPA point before responding to it. OPA may tell the author that it is more distracting because of specific reasons and then the author can try to oppose those reasons, but the reasons the author gives are just outright stupid.

Carrillo: states that his statistical model supports the conclusion that the first primate species developed around 81.5 million years ago.

Olson: responds by presenting the oldest fossil found that dates back to 55 million years ago. Therefore, Olson thinks that Carrillo's estimation is speculation.

It might look like they disagree with the dates of when the first primate species developed, however, Olson is not saying outright that it is impossible for primates not to have developed earlier. Because of the difference between the dates, Olson doesn't agree with Carrillo's evidence in supporting its conclusion. A is incorrect because they would both agree that primates have been around for more than 55 million years. Carrillo would say: duh obviously look at my statistical model! And Olson would say: umm, maybe it's possible.

B is where they disagree. Carrillo would say that his statistical model is reliable and supports his conclusion, whereas Olson would flat right say no, you are speculating and your model doesn't help.

Hendry: gives a principle. If harms employer's customers → should be illegal to strike. He thinks that most employee strikes should be legal, therefore he implicitly assumes that employee strikes do not harm an employer's customers.

Menkin: On the basis of Hendry's principle, thinks that employee strikes should be illegal. There is an implicit assumption: that employee strikes harm employer's customers.

That is why B is correct. Hendry would say no, it would not harm the employer's customers. Menkin would say yes, it would harm them and that is why it should be illegal.

I really don't know why I treated this as a NA question. I think I lost track of my task and it led me down the wrong path.

We are told in the stimulus the following:

Premise: A new strain of flu has infected some people.

Conclusion: Therefore, there will be more cases of flu this year than last year.

The conclusion is concerned with quantity/numbers: more

What would help fill the gap in showing that the new strain of flu will bring about this situation? Well, we need to know that the flu from last year is also present, either staying the same or increasing in number.

If the flu from last year was gone and it was only the new strain, then how could it be true that there will be an increase in the number of flu cases this year?

E is perfect and fills the gap. If the strain from last year will not decline at all, then this will help the argument. If you place this statement into the argument, it flows perfectly:

Premise: A new strain of flu has infected some people.

Answer choice E: This year, there will be no decline in the number of cases of flu infection from strains of last year.

Conclusion: Therefore, there will be more cases of flu this year than last year.

Just because two parties were separated by a small percentage of votes, does not mean that they are strictly divided. It could be that the small percentage actually proves that they are pretty similar and people share similar views.

The stimulus asserts the reason that Bach is remembered is that he has written so many compositions, and the more compositions there are, it is inevitable that some will stand out and survive.

So basically, the fact that Bach was a prolific performer is what made him stay remembered.

Answer choice A directly weakens this contention because if there are other artists who were even more prolific in writing than Bach was, yet have been largely forgotten, then this shows that being a prolific writer has no bearing on whether your work will survive. The other writers had the cause (produced a lot of works) but they did not have the effect (remembrance)

Fell for D. I glanced at C and wanted to choose it but didn't see how it did anything to the argument. I think this is because I largely missed the "exceptionally still" in the beginning and did not note the causal relationship. Knowing that the waters of the other islands are much rougher does not help the causal relationship in the argument.

We want an answer choice that reaffirms that the still waters are what cause the juveniles to nurse in these areas. C does this - whenever there are still waters, juveniles use it. So basically: whenever the cause is there, the effect happens and this is reaffirming the causal conclusion.

I don't think another cancel would look bad. Law schools are only concerned with your highest LSAT score and plus there could be a reason you canceled the July exam - since it's the introduction of the digital format. Don't worry too much about that and just go with your gut

Alllmost fell for the circular reasoning answer choice.

But then I realized that the argument is saying that to be effective → X

The argument tries to equate X with (like a 1,000 times) to conclude effectiveness. Therefore, it is overlooking the requirement that needs to be fulfilled in order to be effective.

This took me over two minutes to figure out. Then I realized that 6PM is /7PM and vice versa so it came out to a chain:

SC → 6PM → /7PM → /AC

Fremont argues that to be a viable candidate one must have a background in the oil industry.

Galindo disagrees with Fremont: Not ( viable → background) on the basis that Not ( background → success) and provides an example of someone who had a background in the oil industry and was not successful in the company.

Galindo's example supports his contention of Not ( background → success), however, this does not support the overall refutation of Fremont's claim.

A) No personal bias present

B) Relevant, irrelevant? out of scope

C) Yes - Galindo's argument is fallacious because he is confused between the sufficiency/necessity of success and background. We can reasonably assume that Fremont would illicitly state that success guarantees one to become a viable candidate. Then Galindo comes in and disagrees that this is the case by showing that background does not guarantee success, but this was the wrong kind of relationship to support his disagreement.

D) Descriptively inaccurate. The conclusion of Galindo is implicitly stating that background is not necessary to success and the premise is showing that background is not sufficient to success, so this isn't it.

E) Also descriptively inaccurate. The argument is not making a broad generalization from the instance/example, but countering a relationship.

I don't know why I chose C because this is clearly not circular reasoning. The premises are not assuming the truth of the conclusion. The argument is a bad argument, but it is not committing a circular reasoning fallacy.

However, A is correct (the other answer I was contemplating with) and let's imagine that the author did give us a reason as to what would've happened in a scenario where the majority party had not supported the bill. What if the author showed that in this scenario there is something that would make the election outcome be different (them losing votes). Then, this would help the argument. But, the author didn't do this which is the problem and fallacy.

I saw it on Amazon (you can pre-order it) but I'm not sure when it is being released.

Also would like to know this!

I was between A and C and chose C but A was tricky to eliminate.

All we know is that etiquette helps people get along with one another. Then we are told OPA (what many people believe) and they criticize etiquette because they think it has no beneficial effect on society, but these people also believe that social harmony & kindness are good.

Just because they believe etiquette to have no effect on society and they believe social harmony & kindness are good does not mean that they have contradictory views about etiquette.

They just have the wrong views about it. They are misinformed.

C tackles that. A, on the other hand, focuses on contradictory when there is none.

Deleted

Would love to join this Friday!

B would strengthen the argument when negated. If aerobic volunteers also lifted weights, then this would strengthen the conclusion because it shows that it was the aerobics that helps the body handle stress.

E was super difficult to parse out for me. Luckily, I did not eliminate it and was considering it, but I couldn't understand how it related to the stimulus. It is saying that on average the aerobics volunteers got a lot more exercise overall during the experiment than those who were assigned to weight training classes. If negated, then it would say that the aerobics volunteers didn't exercise more overall, either the exercised the same or less - and this negation would destroy the argument.

I was able to narrow it down between C and E. Here is my explanation:

Premise 1: Some of the lowest paid employees in the country would be protected from a law (maximum wage law) which would not allow executives to earn x amount more than the lowest paid employees.

Premise 2: Right now some executives try to increase the profit of the corporation and their own salary by cutting the pay and benefits of their employees.

Conclusion: Therefore, a maximum wage law would remove the incentive for executives to cut the wages of the lowest paid employees.

A) must it be true that all of the lowest paid corporate employees are employed by corporations where the executives earn 50x their salary? No. The stimulus merely used the number 50 as a random number and this is indicative by the word "say, 50 times..." It could be that some corporations' executives earn 10x more

B) this is not needed. sure it could be the case that some of the executives earn less than 50 times what the lowest paid employee earns, but who cares

C) this could be diagrammed: if a corporate executive raises the wages of their lowest-paid employees → a maximum wage law linked executive wages to the lowest paid employees - wait what? why must it be true that the law raises their wages, what if there is another incentive that would actually do the job just as good, if not better?

D) why must it be true that they would never change the wages of the employees? what if they do one day in like 5 years for some reason, why must it be never??

E) is stating that at least one corporate executive would not cut the pay and benefits of their lowest paid employee - meaning that the maximum wage law being enacted will work, at least once. this is absolutely needed.

D requires an assumption to be correct which is why it is wrong. On the other hand, B strengthens because if strokes are just as likely to happen on the right side and the left side, and since we know that most strokes are diagnosed by the left side, then we can reasonably conclude that the right side is being undiagnosed. D is attractive because I thought it might be showing that doctors are unable to tell the differences in the symptoms of the two, but this would require the assumption that one of them is more subtle in symptoms while another side is more obvious and we can't fill in those blanks to make the answer choice correct.

Phenomenon: There are these journals that now give scientists online access. We would expect that maybe there are a broader amount of articles being cited now. However, this didn't happen. Actually, it led to a greater tendency to cite the same articles that they were citing from before the journals came online.

A does nothing. if you make lots of assumptions, then it will look correct but it is not correct.

B who cares about enthusiasm - it does not help fix the paradox.

C doesn't really do anything and we don't know whether they know the scientists who made the scientific journals that just went online

D is consistent with the paradox and doesn't help

E this helps. online access allows scientists to see articles that have lots of views and those are the ones they prefer to cite. so we can reasonably assume that the journals in the phenomenon don't have lots of views because they are just now being added online!

I will let you know if it happens again. Yes, the section ended on its own when the time ran out and then I remember it didn't allow me to press another section to start and just asked me if I want to blind review and check the box if I already blind reviewed to see my score. Then, without me pressing anything, it would change to the screen that said something like: a problem has occurred refresh the page and it was in red so I would press the box to refresh but the same thing kept happening over and over. Then I just decided to see my score and write down my answers for the first section to start all over but the screen just showed my score on the first section and no answer entries.

Hi Alan, thank you. Yes I redid the section and went through that section quickly hoping that I was inserting the same answer choices. I did receive an error message right after I finished the first section that told me to refresh the page. When I did this the same message kept appearing. It gave me no other option but to blind review and see my results. I did have to delete my PT to start again. I hope you can figure out this problem so it doesn't happen again. Thanks again for your response.

I just did a section of Prep Test 85 and my data for the first section was not saved. The page did not load and now I don't know what I got right or wrong. This is really frustrating.