I think the problem with C here isn't just that it's attacking the premise. If C had said "many people are allergic to herbs," then I think it's a great weaken answer against the conclusion you should always use herbs.

The problem is the "certain medicine", which could include herbs, but also could not. We don't know if herbs are included. To see this using an analogy, suppose the argument is: "Because ice cream tastes good, you should always eat it." C would be like saying, "Certain foods are very salty and do not promote health."

To me, the key reason why E is wrong is the word "like lying." The stimulus doesn't say that other people consider withholding information lying, just that "like lying," it's also unethical.

E would be accurate if the argument had said "some argue that this is also lying...but no, there is a distinction between preventing false belief and actively encouraging one. Thus, withholding information is not lying, even though lying is wrong."

But instead, the "like lying" meant that the stimulus isn't applying a moral principle (not lying) to two cases. It's more of comparing two cases to see if they are both unethical, which is A.

C is also wrong for enlarging the scope of the argument.

C: "psychotherapy should never be provided..."

Stimulus argues that psychotherapists (People) should not do X, not when psychotherapy (Action) cannot be done. What if I offer high quality psychotherapy? The argument only says psychotherapist shouldn't do it on TV. I'm not forbidden.

Thanks @ and @!

The key is to see that the argument isn't saying that contemporary art has zero aesthetic points. It's saying it cannot add more points to people, given that there are all these other arts out there.

In this case, saying that the other arts affect the aesthetic value of contemporary art is irrelevant. It's simply not the flaw of the argument.

Another way to see it is: suppose everyone has a scale of 1-10 of aesthetic fulfillment (10 being the max). The argument is saying that, given all the art out there, you can max out 10 already, so contemporary art doesn't "enable people to feel more aesthetically fulfilled." The assumption is that everyone is already at 10, and contemporary art can't add more.

E says, because other arts exist, the contemporary art dropped from an aesthetic value of 2 to 1. So what? That's simply not the flaw in the argument.

On the other hand, D points out that some people aren't maxed out, because they are "severely restricted" from accessing the other art.

What an amazing apple is not orange question, literally!

I'm surprised about 19. I decided between A and E, but went with A. I knew E was defensible, but I thought A was more relevant to the author's point.

To me (and I may be wrong), passage A is all about how the transition from women's history to gender, while positive, also "overlooks" how women engages with the world, causing women's stories to "recede into the background," and that something was "lost" in this process. To me, the main point was that the integration of women's history into mainstream history cannot stop at studies of gender, i.e. it is incomplete.

Passage B demonstrated an example of analysis that looks at "gender" rather than "women's history." To me, this exemplifies the need to push beyond gender and further integrate women's history by including their actual stores.

I eliminated D for a different reason.

I don't think the stimulus concludes that Riley's argument was false. Instead, the stimulus says that we should not regard the president's speech as inflammatory "solely on the basis of Riley's testimony," given her conflict on interests.

I actually find this an entirely legitimate use of Riley's testimony. The argument is only saying that her testimony cannot solely implicate the president, but leaves open the idea that the testimony could in some small way support an implication. This is not the same as saying that the claim was "false."

I was kind of shocked by how well everyone else did. I didn't think E weakened at all. The epidemic was 430 BCE. A lot could have changed since then - urbanization, population density, medical knowledge and access - that could naturally explain why Ebola epidemic since are "shorter-lived."

@ the conditional is either unsupported or else subtly irrelevant.

Ah, there's the rub.

The key problem is the assumption: Micro Depleted --> No Micro, because "No Micro" could mean "long enough to harm health" or "for a second." In this case, it means "for a second." If micro is depleted, then temporarily, there is no micro.

However, in the context of "No Micro --> /Health," the "No Micro" means "long enough to harm health," which is a rather different.

Not sure why this wasn't apparent at the time. I was really focused on the group one logic indicator. Thanks a bunch. I appreciate the quick response.

@ The stimulus doesn't allow us to conclude this.

Thanks for the comment. I thought the last sentence covered this?

"micronutrients...which are depleted when grass clippings are raked up..."

Another way to say that is "when grass clippings are raked up, micronutrients are depleted."

Isn't that a conditional statement?

@

Thanks! I was wondering what PT-A meant...Was more expecting a number, but this makes sense.

I think another problem with E is scope. Stimulus talks about "toddlers", whereas E doesn't define scope and could be applied to everyone.

The key is the "too." I think if the argument had just said "often," then the last sentence would be the conclusion. "Retailers use promotions often. Promotions of this sort cuts into profits."

But with the "too," it becomes a judgement (inherently a negative thing). "You smoke too much. Smoking is bad for you." Or "You eat too much." "So what?" "Well, you're packing extra calories."

@ Nope. That's still the same mistake; only now you applied erroneously only it once, so you arrived to a different conclusion. If many=some, then C, being "NOT SOME films from the earliest years have already been transferred" would be logically equivalent to "No films from the earliest years have already been transferred"

Ah you nailed it @, I see the problem clearly now. Damn it!

Thanks a million. 30 posts later and there's the rub!

@

Could you add me as well? Thanks!

@ you actually arrived to the right form of the negation of answer C: "no movies have been transferred to acetate".

Thanks for the comments, but let me take my words back. I was lazy and didn't reference the actual language of C, but in looking at it now, it says:

"C: Not many films from the earliest years of Hollywood have already been transferred to acetate."

IF many = some, then C is logically equivalent to "SOME films from the earliest years of Hollywood have NOT already been transferred to acetate." The negation should be:

"ALL films from the earliest years of Hollywood have already been transferred to acetate."

So my earlier translation was wrong (apologies), but I think this last negation does weaken the argument. If all old films have already been transferred to acetate, then of course the argument that "some films will not be preserved" is wrong.

"Not many old movies have already been transferred to acetate"

If many = some, then this should be the same as "SOME old movies have NOT been transferred to acetate" (logically equivalent to above).

The negation of this second sentence is "ALL old movies have NOT been transferred to acetate", or in other words, "NO old movies have been transferred to acetate."

To me, this does weaken the argument.

--

The only way to get around this is by recognizing that "many" is not "some".

So "Not many old movies have been transferred to acetate" negates to

"Many old movies have been transferred to acetate", which is logically equal to

"Some old movies have been transferred to acetate"

--

Do you see how, depending on whether many = some, the negation yields different results. To me, this proves that "many" is not the same as "some."

@ I'm going to miss the grind of studying and constantly striving to improve.

I'm in the same boat. I have a full time job, and there were many days of work, LSAT, sleep, repeat. I kind of got used to and maybe "liked" the routine, because I felt focused. When I walked out of the exam, I felt "lost" for a second - what the hell am I going to do when I get home?

But that's all psychological. There's a lot of things you wanted to do throughout the prep time, and you should remember them and do them. There were a lot of friends, films, and fun that I need to catch up with.

But the battle is not over for me yet. Not until the scores come back and I decide if I need to re-take. So for me, I think of this wait time as the temporary respite before the next charge. Improvements doesn't stop here.

I think a better way to represent this is:

many --> some

but, some --> many is wrong.

@

I think the point of this thread is to say that they are NOT the same. Because if you treat them as the same, you will probably run into trouble.

An example is PT62 S4 Film Preservation question, in which one of the trap answer is "not many films have already been transferred to acetate."

If you think many = some ("some films have not been transferred), then you would negate this as "all films have already been transferred to acetate", which would be the right answer. (Except it's not, because the negation of "not many" is "many").

Conceptually. If curriculum is limited to true literary text, then "true literary text" becomes the necessary condition:

Curriculum -> True Literary Text

(All materials in the curriculum must be true literary text)

But, the argument says the curriculum must also include "analyzing/understanding text", which is not the same as "true literary text".

So do you see how the argument assumes that the curriculum is NOT limited to just true literary text? (which is E). Because if so, the argument collapses.

Nice dude!

Damn. I looked at this a few time, and I agree with the comments posted already. A is wrong because "competitor's ad campaign" is not the same as "advice of a competing consultant." We have no idea if they are the same (which is a dumb word-play trick).

But even if you assume they are the same, A is still wrong, because A is compatible with the conclusion that the campaign is "ill conceived." Who cares that sales could be lower without the ad campaign? The point is that sales could be higher if the campaign was better designed, and thus the campaign was "ill conceived."

A would be correct for a different conclusion, say "Thus, the ad campaign did not contribute to sales positively." Or "Thus, the ad campaign negatively impacted sales." Then you can say, nope, it helped a little bit.

I'm not sure how you would realize this on timed exam. I think the key is to pay attention to the conclusion, and make sure the flaw appropriately addresses that conclusion.

I think D might be easier to see using an analogy.

Law mandates that no more than 5% of your wardrobe should be red. Inspectors select some of your clothing and found 20% red. Thus you broke the law.

In this case, saying that "inspectors tend to choose clothing that looks red" obviously, unquestionably weakens the argument.