No. There isn't an ad hominem flaw here.

If you look closely, the author states that we "shouldn't conclude that her speech was inflamm SOLELY on the basis of R's testimony."

This isn't saying that R's testimony is wrong due to the "feud."

Rather, its only raising the possibility that R's testimony may be wrong and thus should also consult other opinions.

Is raising the possibility also an ad hominem flaw? hmm I don't think so.

I feel like recent LR Qs are making AC wordly / convoluted.

Many is NOT most.

Many is SOME and results in a bicondi relationship.

-lesson I learned from PT 69

This question was hard. I thought you could do a contra-positive for A/B and get BA/ that leads to A/B.

But (C) states that ...behind "many" sig contributions...

whereas the inference is that Love ←s→ sig contributions.

I got rid of C bc of many =/= some distinction.

Q. how da faq does many just translate to some? #help

Initially thought (C) is problematic due to the wording "Many."

Many is Some and that could mean just one factory in Country X.

In a "most weaken the argument" type question, this likely wouldn't be the answer BECAUSE it is too small of a weakener.

BUT THIS IS A WKN Except question. It can't weaken at all. Doesn't (C) weaken just a little bit of amount? Don't get why its wrong.

#help (Added by Admin)

Causation = bicondi

But

(A) consult v. consent

(D) consult v. agree

As much as you need to consult before receiving consent, don't you also need to consult before getting everyone's agreement?

I don't see any difference between A & D.

Q.14.

As much as (E) Asia isn't mentioned, (C) Public is also not mentioned.

But (C) is the better choice bc "Best known..." may be assumed to be meaning the "Public" while for (E), there is no basis for any and all assumptions to be made.

Hard Q. only because we weren't trained for such Answer Choice.

Q.15 Why is D wrong?

Aren't African Americans, Americans? I thought they were Americans. Seems like LSAC or JY views it otherwise. #help (Added by Admin)

C vs D.

even if the company was the only one in the area, it may not be difficult to obtain.

But

if the gov can't obtain from the company and that means that old sirens are difficult to obtain,

that means that old sirens are DIFFICULT to obtain, VERBATIM.

D > C due to comprehensiveness.

Stimulus (Assumption):

More Bold More Survive

(C) More Bold More Survive

(C) perfectly fits into the Stimulus' NA. If it's negated, than the stimulus' NA becomes false.

Q.17 #help

B. picked it bc it seemed to match lines 48-50.

"flattering" = "may sound good"

"only weakly supported" = "not the explanation best supported"

it seemed to be a perfect fit.

BUT

line 62 does state rivalry = ignoble = "ungenerous"

Now I'm confused as to how to pick btwn A and B.

YES I LIKE CRACK NONSENCE BOOKS

this was the hardest Q in this section

This question wasn't easy due to having a LOT of flaws

1. Correlation v. Causation

2. Equating the "changes" with "any modernization."

3. Equating the "increase in attendance" with "increase in the number of worshippers."

I somehow missed the first flaw. FCXK

D vs A.

A is more direct in saying that ice will increase.

The ARGUMENT here is that

P: G-> S lower -> M enhance

C: G --> not directly M enhance.

Because of the LOWERING STRESS factor --> substance G isn't DIRECTLY enhancing memory.

only (B) tackles the argument.

If NO HIGH STRESS, there is not LOWERING STRESS factor, and thus CAN'T argue that G does not directly enhance memory.

(C) impairing memory? irrelevant with stress factor making G substance's affect not direct.

(E) taking just as long time? again, irrelevant with how the stress factor is making G substance's effect not direct.

easy peasy lemon squeazy

@ said:

@ Wasn't the 75 questions being scored only for FLEX LSATS? Isn't back to 100 questions being scored?

nope.

This question deserves to be wronged.

A very unique Q.

Basically, the stimulus has a hypothesis and a "phenomenon" that confirms such hypothesis.

But that is the flaw. We simply can't confirm a hypothesis to be true just due to one phenomenon. That is, there needs to be a 'control group' for a scientific study to be valid.

And that's the flaw (E) kinda tries to eliminate. By eliminating a condition which may have affected the phenomenon regardless of the hypothesis, it weakens the flaw (STRN).

-------

As for (D) ... The stimulus argues that because of the time shift, overall accidents decreased. Here, we may infer that accidents in the morning decreased. And (D) is saying that accidents occurred in the evening > morning.

It does strengthen as it is repeating the premise from a different angle. But (E) by comparison eliminates one possible flaw and thus MOST strengthens the argument.

-----------

If u liked my explanation plz like subscribe and follow for more! ;)

Fuck Question 14. D & E also works.

There actually exist two flaws in the argument.

1. "Many would agree"

2. "Better leader" = "Best PERSON to lead this nation" (This may not be the same).

When looking at the 2nd flaw, (C) becomes attractive. However, since the 1st flaw is 'bigger' than the 2nd flaw, we should first seek to use the 1st bigger flaw to WKN the argument.

That leads to choices (A) and (B).

When comparing the two choices, (A) is the better one since it directly attacks the "Many would agree" flaw; sth doesn't have to be true just bc many agree on it.

Also notice how (A) doesn't outright reject the premise and thus could be a valid WKN answer. (We have to take the premise as granted). Beautiful question.