For this one I drew the diagram with the “info from reliable source” on the left of the some arrow and the “/self evident + /grounded in observable evidence” on the right. I know it’s the same thing but I think this messed me up in visually seeing the connection between A and C because my diagram wasn’t linear. If that makes sense.
Would it also be correct to say that B is wrong because it talks about a solution rather than just improvement?
#help (Added by Admin)
I get why A and C are wrong now but even after watching the explanation I'm still confident I never would've chosen B
I find this question more and more confusing the more I think about it. So does this mean that the same word can’t be used twice in an argument, without making that argument flawed or misleading? I thought that the use of the word “compromise” was used appropriately in both of its contexts, so it didn’t jump out to me that the politician was trying to mislead with it. I thought that the main problem with the politician’s argument was that he/she was trying to say that their opponents are betraying the goals of the city’s founders, without any sort of evidence/proof/statement that the opponents are advocating principles that go against the charter’s principles. Thus to say that they’re “betraying” the city’s founders (when they could just be advocating things which the politician personally doesn’t like) is misleading (I chose A).
#help (Added by Admin)
I changed my answer from C in the blind review because when you negate it, it becomes “the geographical difference between Toronto and New York did result in the two individuals having different horoscopes.” If this is true, then I thought it didn't ruin the argument or effect it at all. Like, the experiment that the psychologist happened to use isn’t even representative of what he’s trying to prove - if he/she is trying to argue that it is false to claim our horoscopes completely determine our personality, then wouldn’t a finding that 2 people of completely different horoscopes are the same/different just have no effect? It could still be true that horoscopes do determine our personalities, we just don’t even know because it hasn’t been proven true or false.
Is there an explanation for 13? I cannot understand why D is wrong. #help
This question is so tricky but when the right stuff is pointed out it’s so obvious
I knew what the flaw was but didn't know what equivocal meant. Lol
I totally thought the flaw was that the author used the fact that the music was played on an organ to justify that it was religious music (and chose C). Didn't even catch that divinely inspired doesn't have to be synonymous with religiously inspired.
I chose B round 1 and then switched it to E, I think mostly because although I didn’t think B was a weak criticism, E sounded descriptively just incorrect to me. I’m not sure why but I have difficulty interpreting the meaning of options that start with “takes for granted.” Also because of the referential phrasing my brain was just getting overloaded. This could just be a me problem but for anyone who has a similar issue, this is what helped me eliminate E:
Swap out “takes for granted” with “assumes.” So now it’s “assumes that agreeing with the association’s past recommendation helps to justify agreeing with its current recommendation.” So essentially the criticism is that the commissioner, in the last bit of the excerpt (where he says “moreover, you may recall that when I received input from the neighbourhood association in jail relocation, I agreed with his recommendation”) assumes that because he agreed with a last years recommendation, this helps justify him using this years recommendation to make a decision. This is a bold assumption and a weak argument, as one could just say he simply made the same mistake last year. Just because you did the same thing last year doesn’t explain why it was a good move! Thus E isn’t the least vulnerable to criticism.
I got A because I somehow got the idea of what it was saying, but reading it word for word really screwed me up. Like if I read it anywhere else I would swear it's a typo. But I think if you read it with a comma after the "would" and "true" it's easier to understand. Or maybe it's just me!
For question C I was under the impression that Mexican American writers just aren't focused on trying to be absorbed into US society, not that they were actively resisting it.
I don't get this one and if I ever get a similar one I'm just gonna accept that I wouldn't get it either. I crossed out A confidently just from the mention of 1970s.
Does answer C not just repeat a fact given in the passage though? It says that those are the two reasons only.
The conclusion would've been more valid if the person just used "people with university degrees" as the pool of participants, and then determined what portion of this whole have cats/dogs/both!
I was tricked by E. Reading it with no time pressure and for the first time, I definitely interpreted it as saying something like "makes an unsupported assumption that at least some accidents involving red cars result in some loss of life." I know it doesn't say anything like this but after reading the stem and before looking at any of the choices, the flaw that really stood out to me was that the author was assuming accident = death at least some of the time, and E was the closest option to that. I also think that I completely skipped over C because I just took the insurance companies claim as true. One of the downfalls of having my undergrad in psych and taking like 10 perception courses.
#help would E be more correct if instead of "explanation," it said "result" or something like that?
I kept thinking it was a fake binary cut because it only mentioned flexible and instinctual behaviour. I didn’t notice they used “non instinctual” to mean flexible omg
The "against" in AC B threw me off cause I thought it was trying to suggest that the lawmakers were arguing against it.
I didn't go for the trap answer choice, I got it wrong the first time, changed it and still got it wrong the second time LMAO
Are the upcoming LSATs still going to have an experimental section? I just took a preptest from June 2019 and it doesn't look like one of the sections was omitted. And then when I googled it, people were talking about the June 2022 one not having one either. Why is this? I'm taking mine in January.
definitely would've gotten this right if I'd known what posterity meant
#help Would D be correct if it said something like "if the new course proposal that Dean Wilson received is for an upper-level course, then all newly approved courses next year will have prerequisites"?