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.
#help would E be more correct if instead of "explanation," it said "result" or something like that?
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'm also having trouble with this. I'm not 100% sure but I think C is just a stronger answer and B presents more flaws that just aren't in C or the stem. With C, pennies and nickels are 1:1 analogous with sugar and aspartame. The flaw in the conclusion of C is most analogous to the stem in how it assumes that just because 1 unit of one thing is worth more/sweeter than 1 unit of another thing, an entity (piggybank or soft drink) with the former is of higher value. It ignores the fact that there could be more units of the less valuable thing in this entity.
Now answer B is similar in how it has 2 units of greater/lesser value (reading time/television time) and makes the flawed assumption that this means people read more than watch TV, but I think that B also has major flaws in how it reaches this conclusion that aren't present in C or the stem. The assumption alone that just because most people have more books than televisions → most people read more than watch TV isn't very just. You may have 1000000 books and 1 TV, but watch TV all day and never pick up a book. Or, you may read 1 page of your book per full TV show you watch. Owning a certain number of books/TV shows tells you nothing about how much time you spend on them. Or, at least not as much as would owning pennies/nickels, or consuming sugar/aspartame. With these units, the values assigned to them (monetary value/sweetness) are much more intrinsic and indivisible. If you have a penny/nickel, you objectively have more value in the nickel. If you consume 1g of sugar and 1g of aspartame, you objectively consumed more sweetness with the aspartame. In contrast, if you have 1 book/1 TV show, you can devote whatever amount of time you want to them. Hope that makes sense.
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.
#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"?
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)
Is there an explanation for 13? I cannot understand why D is wrong. #help
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.
Does answer C not just repeat a fact given in the passage though? It says that those are the two reasons only.
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
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)
If A was phrased more like “it is not generally known how or in what way many first hand accounts of earlier flawed scientific work are mistaken” would this make it a possible correct answer? #help
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.
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 A because of the part of the stem that said "even if these [meaning premeditated assaults within the family] are increasing, they would probably not result in deaths if it were not for the prevalence of such knives." I thought that this reasoning was flawed - to assume that unpremeditated assaults within the family would "probably not result in deaths" if it weren't for the prevalence of knives - because so many other lethal weapons are also available and could be used to cause death from these assaults. So who is to say that these assaults wouldn't result in deaths just because one lethal weapon (knives) is taken away. I'm guessing my mistake though was that this choice doesn't call out the flaw of the support for the conclusion.
This question is so tricky but when the right stuff is pointed out it’s so obvious