This question can be better resolved if you keep a strict sense of the paradox in your head: why is it that even if residents voluntarily cut back on air conditioner use, blackouts will still probably occur unless heat wave subsides?
The difference between AC A and AC B is that AC B targets why this reduction does nothing. AC A attempts to do this, but it doesn't prove that reducing AC doesn't do anything, but just proves that other drains on energy exist. It could be the case that AC shares the grid with hydro 50-50, meaning they are both significant drains, but in this case reducing AC would do something to resolve the blackouts meaning it does not solve the paradox.
The problem with A is also that it doesn't target the premise-conclusion relationship. Where does the council member conclude that the opposing council members' view is correct? Even if we fixed the AC to 'presumes that a lack of evidence against a view is proof that a view is incorrect' which is more descriptively accurate, the main conclusion is that the council member's own proposal is a better one, not that the opposing argument is correct/incorrect. This conclusion is better embodied in B, which says the council member accepts a claim (his own) because the opposers have not adequately defended theirs (which is the premise of the argument).
Takeaway: focus on the premise-conclusion relationship. Why do the premises not support the conclusion? Why is it that the lack of evidence for the opposing council member's argument not prove that the factory would be a better site?
The correct answer for this wrong premise/conclusion relationship could also be: assumes that lack of evidence for a view indicates that the view is inferior. OR proposes a lack of evidence for a view as evidence that an opposing view is better (which is a synonym of B).
P: two molecules, one helpful and other no effect. Local soil conditions influencing one form over another influences which form is more concentrated in the soil.
C: much of data on effects of this weed killer are probably misleading
Flaw: assumes that due to the influence of these two molecules, data is misleading
Prephrase: either strengthens this assumption or provides another reason data is misleading
/A: irr to whether data is misleading
B: this is it, all the data is misleading because doesn’t emulate local soil conditions
/C: weed killer is more concentrated, but how does this prove the data is misleading?
/D: this is the reverse of AC B, if anything this weakens the argument since it shows that conditions applied by the tests are similar to local conditions, so not totally misleading
/E: ok, but the application of the weed killer is with both of the weed-killer molecules so this doesn’t support
P: AF→+AHD
P: AD→+AF
C:AD→ MGH
Flaw Prephrase: assumes that avoiding heart disease is synonymous with maintaining good health, what if avoiding dairy causes other negative ramifications that negatively impact overall health? Like calcium deficiency? This does not lead to maintaining good health
A: eating dairy may have potentially negative consequences due to increased heart disease, but its elimination may have negative consequences (as mentioned above)
/B: yes if fails to consider this, but this is not the flaw, more than one way of decreasing heart disease does not weaken the support since the support only discusses one way
/C: this is very close, but the argument does not presume that anything needs to be eliminated, just that one should ‘avoid fat’ or ‘avoid dairy’
/D: evidence is relevant to conclusion thus descriptively inaccurate
/E: not the flaw
P: people cannot differentiate between valid med info and quackery
P: quackery is appealing to those with no medical background
C: people who rely on the web when diagnosing medical conditions are more likely to do more harm than good
Assumption prephrase: that those with no medical background are those that rely on the web (this was my first Prephrase in BR but I now see why this is unnecessary because it doesn’t matter what the people’s background is in when they rely on the web) OR quackery is harmful to diagnosing medical conditions
/A: not necessary, people can browse the web for other reasons but those who rely on the web can still harm themselves
B: /RSVI→ more harm than good, negation is /RSVI → less harm than good. This hurts the argument because if not relying on scientifically valid info does less harm, then quackery isn’t that bad after all
/C: negation: rely web→does some harm for those who discriminate between scientifically valid info and quackery. Okay, so what if doctors are not harmed? People who rely on web (the majority of the population) can still do more harm than good
/D: if many people assume that scientifically valid→ some not clearly written, this does nothing to the argument because doesn’t touch conclusion
/E: do more harm to selves than good→ sometimes not relying on quackery does not harm the argument because the argument is based on an assumption that they do rely on quackery
P: H apologized to P for lying to her
C: H owes me apology, because H told same lie to both
Prephrase: if a person tells same lie to two people and apologizes to one, needs to apologize to the other
/A: good? Not relevant, we need something that concludes apology
/B: in timed I skimmed and found C, so I didn’t even bother translating B, but here goes: SL→ /neither (one person was owed) →both owed, but was the physician owed an apology? Also my second knock against this AC is that it doesn’t state a ‘sincere’ apology.
C: this is perfect, in this case someone else did receive a sincere apology from H for the same lie, so C (speaker) deserves a sincere apology
/D: not the right sufficient condition, capable is not what most helps to justify
/E: a person should apology→ he/she can sincerely apologize to all others, ok, but is C owed an apology?
Takeaway: negating /neither is just if one person demonstrates the trait.
W:
P: EP→CP (anyone with ESP can convince public by demonstrating powers) (A→B)
C: EPR→AP(if ESP existed, then would be generally accepted by public) (A→B→C)
Assumes that CP→AP (B→C) (that clearly demonstrating powers would mean that it would be generally accepted by the public)
C:
P: popular media and closemindedness biases favor towards media
C: impossible to demonstrate anything to satisfaction of skeptics
Disagree on: whether demonstrating extrasensory perception practitioners will mean that the belief is accepted by the public. W says that demonstrating will mean it is accepted by the public, but C calls out that assumption, and says that even if demonstrated, skeptics will be a block from being accepted by the public.
Answer choices A and C are just blatantly wrong.
/B: this is good so far, C seems to believe that this is not true, W seems to only believe that it can ‘convince the general public’, is skeptic a general public? In timed I thought this was a warranted assumption because I eliminated D and was pressured, but in BR I see that this is way too strong. ‘all skeptics’ is not a warranted assumption by just bring able to convince the general public. General public is broad and may not include all skeptics
/D: is a bit tricky. I went too far and thought the disagreement was my Prephrase targeting W’s assumption and got too hung up on it. Instead this statement is just a mere reflection of W’s first statement as a contrapositive. C would argue that this isn’t true because of the skeptics. You have to read in between the lines for this one, that if skeptics never believe, then whether its true or not is up for debate, skeptics do not reflect the truth of existence.
/E: W has no opinion over whether the public believes it’s a real phenomenon right now , but says the conditional on what would entail it to be believed.
Takeaway: be wary of ‘all’ in AC B, if I considered this quantifier in timed I possibly would have eliminated it on the basis of W not expressing opinion. Also got too hung up on the Prephrase, but I would rather live and die by the Prephrase on a level 5 question then miss a lower level question.
P: sandstrom’s newspaper column led many to trespass and damage property
C: if Sandstrom could have reasonably expected that column would lead people to damage farm → then should pay
SA: If trespass and damage + could have reasonably expected damage → should pay
A: this seems a bit strong but is good because her action led other people to cause damage (satisfying the subset of the conclusion in this AC), thus if one could have expected action to cause damage should pay for damage
/B: this is a necessary condition, not applicable to sufficiency variable
/C: this doesn’t seem to bridge the premises and conclusion
/D: this just bridges the conclusion but not the premises
/E: doesn’t matter what the mendels believe
Takeaway: push A→ (B→C) together to make A + B→C
During timed, I had a hard time picturing paragraph 4 and especially Estabrook's reasoning for using the old methods. What would have really helped is knowing the definition of idiosyncrasy, which I know now to mean ~uncertainty.
Further, another definition stumped me in Q14, I originally glossed over A because I didn't know what artifice meant, but now I know that to mean 'a clever or artful skill'.
Often in RC and LR knowing definitions of terms aren't necessary as context can provide the meaning, but it certainly does help especially under time pressure. Best to learn these now just in case, and besides, learning new words can be applicable to everyday situations.
Para 1: Tintype Description
HR: Tintype was a process that was abandoned but Jayne finds the details and dimensionality useful and seeks to revive it
Para 2: Estabrook description
HR: Estabrook saw tintype as a means to his fantasy of planting works that could be seen as 'nostalgia'
Para 3: Movement including two previous examples
HR: Photography is moving to new ways of interpreting old techniques
Para 4: Tintype history + Reasons for New Revival
HR: Tintype was lost and found due to its hands-on and idiosyncratic nature. Eastbrook likes this though, because he believes that photos which lose meaning can be seen as 'nostalgic' with this uncertain nature
Para 5: Motivation of movement artists
HR: Movement artists like this because it gives insight to circumstances but also allows to intimate connections with the art
MP: Old art techniques are making a comeback due to some artists liking their idiosyncratic and nostalgic nature
Tone: last paragraph is inquisitive about this movement
Structure: 2 examples- movement- description of why movement is happening
Purpose: To show why old techniques are coming back
Argument framework:
The phenomenon shows A and B happening together, concludes that A causes B.
Possible Weaknesses: that there is a C that causes both heavy metal resistance and antibiotic resistance, that both resistances don't usually develop with heavy metals (this being just a coincidence), that the bacteria were resistant to antibiotics prior to sludge entry, and this promoted resistance to heavy metals
Looking to Strengthen: Needs to prevent the above competing hypothesis from happening, or to add additional support from premises to conclusion
/A: if this said all bacteria in the sludge that were not resistant to antibiotics were not resistant to heavy metals, would be a better stab at a contrapositive of the concluding statement, but this is wrong (see my explanation below)
B: no heavy metals mean no resistance to heavy metal poisoning nor antibiotics, this establishes a control group that shows a case of lack of heavy metals and lack of antibiotic resistance
/C: this goes backwards, shows that antibiotic resistance may contribute to heavy metal resistance
/D: this doesn't show if one causes the other though, could be reverse causality
/E: this is out of scope, we only care about sewage sludge bacteria
Takeaway on why I missed this question: focused too hard on the possible competing hypotheses as soon as I saw causation logic and let B slip past me without fully comprehending what it was doing. Look for control group data points
I fell for AC A because I thought it was the contrapositive of heavy metals→resistance to antibiotics. However, there are 3 things wrong with this answer that I found during BR.
1. The answer choice is qualified by 'most'. You cannot draw a contrapositive from most statements
2. This isn't even saying what I thought it said. It says that resistant to antibiotics → resistant to heavy metal poisoning, which is not what the conclusion states. The conclusion is simply stating that heavy metals in sewage may lead to antibiotic resistance, nothing to do with heavy metal poisoning.
3. This I think is the fatal flaw of the answer choice. The AC simply does not address the premises of the argument at all. Had it said 'all bacteria that are not resistant to antibiotics are not found in heavy metal sewage', thus fixing problems 1 and 2, I would still have chosen B over this because B addresses the support between the premises and conclusion by adding a control group that makes the premises more relevant to the conclusion, whereas A fixed up would just be a contrapositive reaffirming the conclusion.
Recent study found more than 25 percent of above 65 were malnourished, yet only 12 percent of this group fell below gov poverty standards (percent malnourished > percent below poverty line). In 65 or younger, percent below poverty> percent malnourished
Possible explanations: what if the younger you are, the worse you are at managing money? How about if the older you are, the worse you are at preparing food? What if elderly people require more nutrients?
/A: this explains the higher percentage of malnourished above 65
/B: this explains malnourishment in above 65
/C: this explains malnourishment in above 65
D: if below 65 are no more likely to fall below government poverty standards, does that mean they are just as likely? The stim mentions that below 65 have a higher percentage below poverty standards than above 65, so this AC seems contradictory. If E is bad, this is the answer
/E: this AC is similar to B and C in that it explains why people over 65 are malnourished
Analysis: notice how each answer is comparative, I was thinking in BR as I read the ACs that if an absolute answer came out, it would likely be the right answer since absolute/relative flaws are quite common on the LSAT and it would not tell us anything about the other group, meaning it would not explain the paradox (if measuring <65, what does it tell us above above 65?). Not relevant to this question however, but useful for the future
P: HeC-likely->job openings, HtbC-likely->He
Link those two up A-likely Blikely C
C: searching C, should A
Reasoning structure: A-likely Blikely C, looking for C? likely A
/A: older antiques (A) likely MV (B), antique dealers?? This is where I stop reading since this doesn't link and is not the conclusion (there is a ‘so’ coming along)
/B: antique dealers who authenticate age (A) likely plenty of antiques for sale (B), most valuable are those… (where is the next likely?)
C: Antiques age authenticated (A) likely valuable (B). antique dealers likely carry A, ok stop here. What should it say? If looking for valuable goods should go to antique dealers. Boom exactly, this is correct. At this point I would move on since parallel questions are a huge timesink
/D: many know? Where is likely… and many = some so I can already eliminate
/E: where is the likely in the first sentence? ‘most’ in conclusion is double red flag
Analysis: whiff out the conclusions on the ACs, everything else is premise. Does the premise say likely? If not=wrong, if so= could be right. I first eliminated C since I didn’t think generally was a ‘likely’ synonym but got it upon second glance since it was the only one that matched the structure somewhat
P: arthritis sufferers that believed in this correlation gave widely varying accounts of time delay between weather and intensity
SC: researchers tried but failed to find correlation between pain intensity and features of the weather
C: thus, this study… (something along the lines of showing that what these people believed were false)
Analysis: These types of questions require a strong Prephrase, or else the answer choices will eat you alive (in this case B). Spend more time in the stimulus figuring out what the conclusion can be, and go hunting. This will ultimately save time and avoid traps like B.
/A: nope, we don’t know that, the study showed that it was phony
/B: this is something that is true in the stimulus, but not the ultimate conclusion that was prephrased
C: this seems supported, their belief is phony
/D: not supported, why are some more susceptible than others?
/E: impossible? Anytime language goes this hard im tempted to eliminate, in this case we only proved their beliefs to be false, not that the whole situation is impossible
P: archaeologists have their necessary information
P: future archaeologists might be misled without the original evidence
C: flooded mosaics should have been left in the original location
Prephrase: If there is the potential for future archaeologists to be misled without original records, should keep the originals there
A: this really threw me off because the logical translation is considerations→ archaeological. Really did not know how to fit this into the argument, since the premises check off the necessary condition, doesn't that make the conditional go away? #help
C: I chose this due to POE since it seemed to be the only one with bearing on the conclusion
Phenomenon-hypothesis structure
P: children in large families generally have fewer allergies than children in small families do
C: Hypothesize that germs during infancy make people less likely to develop allergies
Analysis: In strengthen questions, I tend to attack the argument to see if an answer nullifies a weakness since those ACs are harder to spot than an additional premise strengthener. Without phenomenon-hypothesis structures, a great way of attack is to suggest an alternative hypothesis. So, what if large families tend to be more germ cautious since they don’t want to spread it to all the kids? What if there is an explanation that the more kids one has, the less resistant they are to allergies (not likely to happen though)
A: okay, my problem with this answer is that is seems to be supporting the premise. How does this make me believe that exposure to germs during infancy is what causes allergies? No mention of germs at all
B: ok… I chose this one because I had no idea what allergenic meant, but now looking at this it does not support the exposure to germs during infancy argument at all either
C: this is entirely irrelevant to the conclusion
D: this again does not touch on the researcher’s hypothesis, but this would have been a decent strengthener if it negated the possibility that larger families’ parents have more likelihood of allergies and pass it on to their children
E: day care and exposure to germs goes hand in hand, this is a warranted assumption. By showing that those who were exposed to germs earlier (in infancy) were less likely to develop allergies than families who entered later, this creates a world where the researcher’s hypothesis actually holds, and thus strengthens the argument.
Great rule of thumb: If you can't identify the conclusion or premises on a sufficient assumption question, guess and move on
P: some people with bulging or slipped disks felt no pain
C: slipped or bulged disks could not lead to serious back pain
Flaw: Just because some A's and not B's, doesn't mean A→/B every time, the only logical conclusion you can make with A some /B is that A→B every time is not possible. However, in this instance A→/B is too extreme, so we have to think, how can I make this not true given the premises?
Well, what if we posit the consideration that some A's are B's? This failed consideration then harms that A→/B every time, since it is the logical negation.
AC B points this out, the argument fails to consider A some B. A factor that is not in itself sufficient (A is not sufficient for B), may nonetheless be partly responsible (this is weak language imo, nice going lsat) for that effect in some instances (B)
I'm gonna be completely honest, I just started LG after a month of LR and I keep bombing each problem set. I may get them right but take double the time i should ideally be taking. Any advice? Did anyone else start rough too? I'm just getting a little worried because I've booked my test already, little discouraged and just wanna see how I can tackle this better. All the best to you all!!
Hopefully this helps someone since it tripped me up about selecting E, although i still chose it as it was the best of the lot.
The tricky part about AC E is that it says none of the candidates work for arvue, and in the sufficient condition it appears we need none of the fully qualified candidates for a new position work for arvue.
However, if totally none of the candidates work for arvue, it is not possible for a subset of that none, the fully qualified candidates for a new position to work at arvue, thus the sufficient condition is satisfied.
By "Reading the stimulus (i.e. question prompt first)", do you mean reading the block of text first or the question that was being asked?
This question is an example of how gluing yourself to indicators may trip you up. I got this right timed because my gut was telling me E over B but I switched it to B in blind review.
The 'since' in this question makes it seem easy because you see 'oh, since introduces a premise and after the comma is a conclusion, so i just have to bridge the two and the rest has to be context'. Mechanically applying the premise-conclusion sufficient assumption model is what led me to choose B in blind review, and now I see why it is wrong.
There are two premises in this argument, with the first sentence lending support to the latter. Imagine if you took the first sentence out, why should the average speed level for all such roadways reflect the 120 kmh? That makes little sense, which to me indicates that the first sentence is supporting that fact, it is a premise or a reason, along with the fact of average speed levels on high ways being 120 kmh, for why we should conclude that as a uniform national speed limit across stretches of all such roadways should be set.
Thus, B ignores the first premise, whereas E takes into account the first and the second premise since we know the average speed is 120 (second premise), this reduces accident rate (first premise), so it should be implemented (conclusion).
Has anyone saved a list of medium-difficult referential phrasing LR questions (especially forward-pointing referents) and/or multi-clause sentences that use referential phrasing? I'm trying to hone this skill and would love to help put together a list so others can do the same.
51.3.23 is a good one for starters, would love the help, thanks!
Another way to get towards the right answer A is that no other answer choice parallels the necessary logical portion that there is a 'most objective measure' to determine the subject of the stimulus. In A, it claims to have a 'most reliable measure' of danger which is lacking from the other answer choices, an additional reason for its correctness
Q22: Principle
P: Officer exemplary record ↔ eligible for mayor’s commendation
P: Act saved someone’s life + eligible officer who did something that exceeded reasonable expectations →receive award
C: F should receive commendation but P should not
Gap: for someone to not receive an award, the only way is through is the biconditional stated above concerning eligibility. If failed exemplary record, then is ineligible for commendation.
Not going to go through the answer choices since it should be fairly obvious once you realize the hidden necessary assumption. On BR I made the assumption but during time,d I was stuck and looking for a way to draw the negated necessary, ended up skipping.
Takeaway: when given a negated necessary condition with only sufficient conditions pointing to it, there must be something more in order to fail the relationship. It must be that another necessary condition is failed to point back to a failed necessary condition.
This question flew over me as soon as I picked A because I was too lenient on the answer choices. the qualifier is what separates A and E, and where A says that if 'most' of this future thing will happen, E does not and is universal through its 'if the next artifact is made of stone' logic.