E is strongly supported. We know that people who have degenerating disks may experience a delayed onset of chronic pain, due to a weakening of muscle groups. This weakening of muscles stems from lack of exercise. We can create a causal chain:

Lack of exercise –C-> Weaker muscles -C-> Delayed pain

We can infer then that by increasing exercise, this may help to disrupt the casual chain above. It doesn’t guarantee these people will be pain free, but it can help the process.

B is correct. We can map it out in the following way:

P: Emotions --> /Control --> /Responsible

C: Emotions --> /Morally blameworthy

Assumption: /Responsible --> /Morally blameworthy

If you contrapose our assumption (Morally blameworthy --> Responsible), you arrive at B.

D is correct. Let's consider that this statement was actually true. Imagine Sullivan is 65 years old, but he was competing with 1,000 35 year olds, and the others who received the promotions were 70 years old, but they were literally the only option. If that were the case, that would completely undermine the argument. It very well could have been that age played a factor in Sullivan not getting the promotion.

This is a cookie-cutter case of circular reasoning. The senator’s argument takes the following form:

P: True art --> /Obscene

C: Obscene -->/True art

The conclusion is just the contrapositive of the premises. When contraposed back, you have the exact same premises and conclusion, which is circular.

This is a cookie-cutter case of equivocation. The mayor’s use of the term “afford” is strictly being used from an economic point of view, i.e., “we do not have enough money to go through with this right now.” The concerned citizen disagrees, based off an equivocation of the term “afford.” The way that they use the term is more of an appeal to emotion, as well as to the consequences of not taking action. That usage of the term is misdirected and isn’t truly addressing the financial concerns of the mayor.

C is correct. The argument (albeit in extremely wordy fashion) simply concludes that because the two drugs are similar in their effectiveness, there is no reason for doctors to prescribe one over the other. That conclusion is extremely unsupported. There could be a host of reasons that doctors choose one over the other. For example, side effects could be extremely relevant in doctors choosing what to prescribe. If two medicines are similar in effectiveness, but one causes extreme joint pain, the doctor will have a valid reason to choose the other option even though it’s equal in its effectiveness to the first option. That’s just one example, but that’s all we really need to demonstrate the flaw in this case.

Worst argument I've ever seen

E is correct. Richard explicitly states that “abstract art fails to meet the fundamental requirement of art (i.e. representation).” In short, abstract art is not representational, so it’s not art. Jung-Su then implicitly rejects this claim by stating that “abstract artists choose to represent purely formal features of art, which are discovered only when everyday perspectives are rejected.” AKA, abstract artists aren’t nonrepresentational, they just choose to represent things that average everyday art observers wouldn’t think to notice. If you asked Richard if he thinks abstract art is representational, he would say no. If you asked Jung-Su, he would say yes. That’s how you know this is the disagreement.

E is correct. The application commits the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing sufficiency and necessity. The structure is as follows:

Principle:

ingredients upset customers --> label

Application:

CC’s /ingredients upset customers --> CC’s /label

E is worded in a relatively roundabout way, but it is correct in describing the error. Under certain conditions (Ingredients being upsetting to customers), a certain action MUST be taken (labeling). However, in the absence of ingredients being upsetting to customers, that does not allow us to conclude that we don’t need to label the products. There very well could be other legitimate reasons for labeling. All we’ve done by confirming there are no ingredients that are upsetting is eliminating one guaranteed pathway to arrive at labeling.

This is the worst argument I've ever seen.

LSAC writers were really doin the most on these old questions

This is the hardest most easy question ever.

No way this is a 2 star passage lol

Absolutely no way in hell this is a 2 star passage lol

@markymymarkymark768 fantastic explanation right here

dumbahhh question lol

hard afffff

Thought D was wrong because it makes the general statement of "news reports are unlikely..." But the stimulus makes a specific modifier that these news reports are pessimistic. Guess I overthought it.

@tarapg2901 No definitely not. A lot of the time (maybe even most of the time) the conclusion actually is identifiable by keywords. Its important though to always double check to make sure the premises actually support the statement that follows the indicator.

can't you just say

For Beresford residents:

Pet allowed -> Medical purpose

or

~Medical purpose -> ~pet allowed

I feel like all the approaches over complicate this issue if you can just translate using the original negate sufficient rules from earlier

Interested

I'm interested!

Interested!