Sufficient assumption questions require an AC that forces the conclusion to be true.

B doesn’t work because its says maximize profits —> market. If marketing is a necessary condition it CAN’T force the conclusion to be true, it’s just a requirement for the conclusion.

If marketing was SUFFICIENT for maximizing profits, then this would work as an AC— this is what AC E does.

I was shocked C was wrong but now I undertand! Very helpful explanation!

Basically, if C is true, we still have justify why one's lack of knowledge means they shouldn't get fined. In other words, A is the premise we need to make C work.

But even without all of that, A is the ONLY ac that mentions criteria for NOT being fined, so it has to be right.

part to whole flaw !!!!! yessirrrrr

This one is tricky because B actually requires a subtle secondary assumption-- that a being given whatever it wants/that's never deprived never needs practical intelligence.

I got this right, but mainly because of process of elimination. I'm reading the Loophole in conjunction w/ 7sage and I really like how they explain necessary and sufficient assumptions

Sufficient assumptions FORCE the conclusion to be true, and therefore can be broader in scope/more ridiculous than necessary assumptions ACs-- but they still have to FORCE a conclusion based on the stims premeses.

C doesn't work because it doesn't force the conclusion. Just because deprivation is the BEST way to teach this skill doesn't mean its the ONLY way-- and this is what would have to be the case for this choice to work.

D doesn't work because inferences about ppl WITH practical intellegence aren't going to force any conclusions about ppl who CAN'T learn practical intelligence

etc, etc, etc.

I got this wrong and chose B initially, but I understand why its wrong now.

B sounds like the principle behind the ENVIRONMENTALIST'S reasoning, not the author's reasoning. The author's conclusion is that environmentalists ignore consequences that may warrant halting spaceflight. Why? Because of one it may offer (viewing damage from space).

We are not told that the benefit has a greater impact than the given consequences, just that the environmentalists are ignoring said consequences.

the respondants flaw is an equivocation (using different definitions of the same word in an argument)

Debater uses hierarchy to criticize the use of a lecturer vs peer interaction

Respondant used hierarchy to defend linear curriculums

ok I got this right and had correct reasoning but the wording is rough here lol. In short, the flaw is a possibility =/ certainty loophole and AC B is just a confusing way of saying the contrapositive of the Duke's statement/conclusion.

Duke (prem 1): rule successfully (RS) --> concerned with people (C)

Prem 2: /RS --> /C (this prem is a mistaken negation)

Conclusion: RS --> C (in other words the duke was right)

Loophole: Just because failing governments are associated with lack of concern doesn't prove that concern is required for successful Gov.

This is what D is saying.

B is saying: Implies RS --> C because /C --> /RS.

That's 1.) the contrapositive and 2.) not how the conclusion is reached.

I picked E but I understand why it's wrong now. Predictionns, accurate or not, are just predictions. They aren't the same thing as the actual phenomena itself. Accurate predictions of the realtionship are required for the argument. That's like saying you need to have accurate sources to make an argument on twitter. Should you? probably. Do you need to? No.

B is describing the ACTUAL relationship btwn phenomena (food being on tv vs views eating those foods)

I originally didn't like B because the certainty level wasn't the same as the conclusion, but this doesn't matter.

conclusions prove the NA (conclusion --> NA). You can prove a possible claim with certain support (certain --> possible). That's what happenend with AC B.

what you CAN'T do is go possible --> certain, but that isn't relevant in this case.

So TLDR: ACTUAL relationship is more important than predictions of said relationship. Also 'certain' support can support a 'possible' claim, but 'possible' support can't support a 'certain' claim.

C is correct because it completely contradicts the analyst. It's saying that the Goverments are actually contributing supply to the free rice market in a times when supply is low.

I got this AC right but this first 10 were pretty tough, esp 5-10

originally picked C but switched to D in BR.

In short-- we need an explanation that tells us how land and air predators are different in relationtion to monkey prey:

A: this is wrong because it doesn't tell us how the two groups are different.

B: same as A.

C: this just tells us that the two groups are distinct with no overlap....but so what? the stimulus already seperates these two groups for us and we still don't understand why there's a different call for BOTH groups.

D: this tells us the monkies avoid the two groups differently-- they avoid one via trees and one via foliage. This is a meaningful distinction so this could be a resolution.

E: same as A and B.

Conclusion: we understand process A better than process B

Reasoning: building a computer model of process A is easier than modeling process B.

Interference: better understanding = easier modeling

this is basically what E is saying, so it's right. But in general, for principle questions the principle must have relevence to the CONCLUSION. So with this in mind, the correct answer should mention our 'understanding' and it does.

This question was so confusing to me during the exam but I got it right during blind review.

Basically, you need to see the contrapositives for this to make sense.

Argument:

SCQ --> 6PM

ACQ --> 7PM

Contrapositives:

/6PM --> /SCQ

/7PM --> /ACQ

Inference: They awards and standards committees CANNOT have quorums on the same day because the GA can't start twice-- it either starts at 6 or starts at 7. This also DOES NOT mean that if one org doesn't have a quorum, the other will-- just that the GA won't start at the corresponding time.

E is the only option because it doesn't go beyond the scope of the stim.

I get that LSAC is 'never wrong', and B is technically right, but D is also OBJECTIVELY correct.

The conclusion is supported by referencing an EMPIRICALLY DISPROVEN myth that babies are born in dispropotinately high numbers on full moons.

AC D says babies are less likely to be born on a full moon than a non-full moon. This HAS to be true otherwise babies ARE being born disproportionately on nights with full moons!!!!

to use example numbers for my math ppl:

- There are 1-2 full moon nights in a given month, the rest (29-30) are non-full moon nights.

- 'more likely' is a probability term that means an event has a higher liklihood of occuring than another event.

- 'disproportionate' means something is unbalanaced in size in relationship to everything else being considered.

IF BABIES HAVE A HIGHER CHANCE OF BEING BORN ON 1-2 DAYS A MONTH THAN THE OTHER 29-30 DAYS, THAT IS MATHEMATICALLY DISPROPORTIONATE !!!!!!!

Therefore D MUST be true or it cancels out the reasoning used to support the conclusion.

Thank you for my Ted Talk lol

#help

This is a possibility =/ certainty flaw.

Just because there is no evidence of a claim doesn't mean the claim is false.

i.e. I have yet to see a black swan therefore black swans don't exist

Conclusion: it can no longer be denied that human activity has appreciable large scale effects on weather

Reasoning: 30 yrs of weather pattern data in industrialzed urban area finds that weekends = cloudier than weekdays (a.k.a 7 day weather cycle), and the number of 7 day cycles that happen NATURALLY are insignifigant.

Added Analysis:

- 'human effects on weather' = '7 day weather cycle' = 'weekends being cloudier than weekdays in 30 yr weather data' THEY ALL REFER TO EACHOTHER.

- in the universe of this stim, there are only 3 options of what could explain the weather patterns

1.) Humans (the hypoth. the stim is arguing in favor of)

2.) Natural 7 day weather cycles (which the argument argues against)

3.) natural NON-7 day weather cycles--- THE ARG DOES NOTHING TO RULE THIS OUT.

With this understanding It's obvious how E is the correct answer.

A. completely irrelevant

B. completely irrelevant

C. tempting due to conditional language, but wrong because the "living organism" stuff is novel info and thus irrelevant for a necessary assumption.

D. similar to C, tempting due to conditional language but wrong since its addressing the idea of a "cyclical weathern pattern" -- based on analysis this is irrelevant to the arg.

Conclusion: it can no longer be denied that human activity has appreciable large scale effects on weather

Reasoning: 30 yrs of weather pattern data in industrialzed urban area finds that weekends = cloudier than weekdays (a.k.a 7 day weather cycle), and the number of 7 day cycles that happen NATURALLY are insignifigant.

Added Analysis:

- 'human effects on weather' = '7 day weather cycle' = 'weekends being cloudier than weekdays in 30 yr weather data' THEY ALL REFER TO EACHOTHER.

- in the universe of this stim, there are only 3 options of what could explain the weather patterns

1.) Humans (the hypoth. the stim is arguing in favor of)

2.) Natural 7 day weather cycles (the hypoth. the stim argues against)

3.) Natural NON-7 day weather cycles--- (a hypoth the stim does nothing to rule out)

OOF This was a tough question. Here is my explaination (followed up by a question).

#HELP

the section from hell.

....

WHAT?!?

this is a brutal first passage lmao

This question was rough, but rereading the stim I understand why B is correct over D. The very last sentence mentions that the flight reports are 'required of pilots'. It's subtle, but once you pick up on the fact that the pilots are self reporting their data, it's clear that this is a possible bias.

As for D, I was upset at first that it's wrong to assume innacurate = unreliable. But after thinking about it longer, they really don't mean the same thing. accuracy has to due with how close something is to the truth (i.e. are the tapes doctored?), while reliability has to do with how consistent a set of measurements are (i.e. are the tapes good quality throughout or is the audio static-y sometimes?). Also the end of D saying "specific flights" is also a red flag. They're not talking about 'specific flights', but all flights.

what helped me conceptualize this disagreement was using macs as an example.

S: the macbook pros didn't cost as much as people think so the school didn't over pay.

M: the school didn't overpay for the macbook pros, but we didn't need pros, we just needed airs

Thus we can infer M disagrees with S because the school bought more complex (and presumably more expensive) computers than necessary. It is a little tricky because you have to assume 'more elaborate' = 'more expensive', but that's the necessary assumption.

C is right.

Very strange stem, but I treated this like a MBF and got it right. Another way to think about it is "could be true except".