Hi there! So I thought the exact same thing re A and E and after a long debate with a friend, here is what we came up with and I hope it is helpful for you.
For A, while it is true that it strengthens the theory a little that there are trees, the fact that the bird is building the nest at the bottom actually hurts the argument a lot in a way that I think outweighs the value of the trees. We agree that if the gliding theory is correct, the early flying dinosaurs needed to be able to climb trees. The fact that they built their nest at the base of a tree doesn't not help prove that and may even indicate that they couldn't climb to build their nest in the tree. Like if the argument were that "this specific bird can climb and fly from trees" and we were ask to chose an answer that weakens that, an AC that said this specific bird builds nests at the base of trees would be a weakener. I think it does essentially the same thing here. Does the fact that they build the nest at the base of trees prove they can't climb trees? No, but it leaves open the possibility and also if they could climb trees, one would think that they would want to build their nest higher up (probably most predators that could reach them in a tree could reach them on the ground, but not the other way around). Again, could you think of a reason a bird may chose to build a nest on the ground even though it could climb? Yeah, but it seams like in most cases it would benefit from the higher ground. Also again, knowing that they build near the base of trees only potentially helps us insofar as we know that they are near trees. Considering this, I thought that the fact that the bird was around trees did not help us prove the theory over the running flying theory more than the fact that the bird didn't choose to build nests high in the tree hurts the theory (meaning, leaving open the possibility that an essential element (climbing) is not met at best, and at worst hurting the argument by showing that even though it appears the bird would have extensive incentives to build a nest higher if it could, it does not, making us think it can't).
For E- We know that "Animals gliding from trees were able to fly with very simple wings. Such wings represent evolutionary middle stages toward developing the large wings associated with flying dinosaurs". This is not part of either theory, it is just a fact that they give us. So, in the course of evolution, animals first developed with simple wings which one could glide with and later they developed larger wings which would give them the ability to run and fly from the ground. So the author is arguing that Early flying Dinosaurs were in that middle phase and not in that later phase. The fact that the main predator could not climb trees would give the dinosaurs a great reason to be in trees and evolution would favor those that were in trees. So, that eliminates one main explanation for the competing theory. Why would the dinosaurs have evolved to running and flying when they avoided their main predator by staying in trees. The running flying theory needs a reason that it would have been advantageous for the dinosaurs to have moved into that later stage, so by taking away one main cause of that (avoidance of predators) it gives us reason to think that the large wing phase hadn't happened yet and supports the theory that the dinosaurs were still in the tree gliding flying phase that would be advantageous to them.
I hope this helps!
So, I actually initially thought the same thing since there are many other questions that are worded similarly and want you to eliminate another factor which could be contributing more. However, it is actually a weaken. If the atmosphere receives most of the heat from the passage of light through it, then reflecting the light back into space to pass through it again would only heat the atmosphere up more, so actually ice would cause the would to heat up likely (since it is the factor that matters the most in that situation). Perhaps you, like I did, initially read it as the reflection of light back into space is the largest factor in determining how much the earth cools by (a product of willful delusion as a result of anticipating an answer), which would be quite helpful in strengthening the argument.
For Q 23, I chose A and I was initially going to post a long essay as to why I thought it was right, but I then had a conversation with a friend and now think I see the reasoning why this is wrong, but in case anyone else is having this same problem, here is what my initial post was going to be and below it is my proposed solution. Hope this helps, and would love for others to weigh in!
I understand why D is something that the author definitely thinks Popper's theory does, but it seems that the phrase "hyperbolic application" more so directly refers to those majority of the cases where scientists use auxiliary theories. The author doesn't think that in the swan example, Popper's conclusion is too radical. If the only theory we are testing is if all swans are white, then finding a black swan would be disproof, thus Popper's conclusion is not too radical for these assumptions. He later says that the problem is that "a scientific theory rarely entails predictions on its own", I take this to mean that they rarely are like the swan example where the only thing you are testing is the prediction itself and one does not require other assumptions. JY's answer indicates that A is wrong because the phrase directly after the comma in the sentence indicates what hyperbolic application means and it does not refer to applying it to too many cases, however one could also think that this phrase was describing what "logical asymmetry" is (in fact, it happens to be where we learn what it is). I guess I am having trouble seeing where the hyperbolic application interpretation is not just applying it to cases where it does not apply. The author clearly states that the logical asymmetry is what it being applied hyperbolically and then just a few sentences later explains this position by noting that Popper's theory of logical asymmetry does not capture the situation scientists face because the majority of cases use the aux assumptions and rarely entail predictions on their own (like the swan theory). This just seems like pretty conclusive evidence to me that hyperbolic application meant applying to cases in which it should not. If it were not, why would we even need to discuss the distinction between theories which do and do not have aux premises. The author's critique is that Popper's theory fails when we assume other premises since the negative evidence could mean that one of those premises is wrong and not the theory one is trying to prove (thus negative evidence is rarely conclusive either). Also, if you just take the term out of context, i'm sure most people would think that it meant applying to cases where it should not. Additionally, for D to be correct, the author would have to think that from the notion of logical asymmetry, Popper drew the conclusion that "positive evidence has no value.." and the best way to describe that process of drawing a conclusion which was too strong was to say he gives it "hyperbolic application'. Does that not just sound very strange? I guess in a generous reading you could say that he applied the notion to hyperbolically in his reasoning and thus drew a conclusion too strong, but I feel like the former idea of hyperbolic application just meaning applied to too many cases is much more solid and has evidence to support it.
Solution: So logical asymmetry is not just Popper's theory of positive evidence being worthless and negative evidence being tantamount to disproof, it is just the weight we afford to each generally. At the end, the author even concluded that there is still a kind of logical asymmetry where positive evidence is never conclusive and negative evidence rarely is. This also helps assuage my concerns with the linguistic stylization of the word "application" since he is applying a general notion (the idea that there is this asymmetry) to form a conclusion hyperbolically, meaning he is taking the notion itself to be more extreme than it actually is and this creates a too radical conclusion. Using the word application in this way makes much more sense to me. Additionally, in distinguishing cases which entail and do not entail auxiliary assumptions, upon further review it looks like the main reason to highlight this was to emphasis that what Popper takes to the the necessary conditions for scientific research is so far off from what the vast majority of cases requires, it is almost not worth considering at all. So it is not a comment on cases where his interpretation of logical asymmetry will work and will not, it is showing that his belief in what scientific research is is wrong, which is supported by the fact that rarely COULD his interpretation even work, so it certainly is not a prerequisite. Hope this helps! I've officially thought about Karl Popper approx 15 times more than I ever thought i'd need to.
For section 2 Q2, I chose B, because I took the word prevent to be used theoretically (Ex. "what does the third amendment do?... it prevents the quartering of soldiers without consent"), and JY's response for why it is incorrect only addresses the literal application of the word (that those obligations physically prevent someone from representing a client they believe to be guilty). However, taken theoretically as well, the answer is still incorrect (incase there is anyone else out there that made the same mistake as I did) :). The author is pretty clear that the two obligations taken together do actually require that one (if they are to adhere to those rules) not "undertake to demonstrate their innocence". While this sounds very similar to B when it says "prevents from representing", it is not the same. As the passage notes, one could actually represent someone they know to be guilty and instead of argue against that guilt, admit the guilt and try to assert that there were mitigating factors, etc. The rules only require that you not make any knowingly false assertions. This is also why E is correct. The rules, according to the author, do not prohibit the representation of someone known to be guilty, just because there is another obligation to the court, since there are many other ways that one can be represented which are not just espousing innocence, thus there is no conflict of interest.
Hi there! I am currently scheduled to take the August LSAT flex (it is now spread out over a week) and signed up for one on September 2nd. I know that typically you have until the day before the LSAT to drop out, but since this one was supposed to be on August 29th, I was wondering if anyone knew if I had to drop by the 28th or if I could drop on September 1st. Thank you!
Hello! I just replied to the comment above with what I think is a decent explanation (I also was super confused why E mattered at all and then had a very prolonged discussion with a friend about it which led us to the below). I hope this is at least mildly helpful! :)
For E- We know that “Animals gliding from trees were able to fly with very simple wings. Such wings represent evolutionary middle stages toward developing the large wings associated with flying dinosaurs”. This is not part of either theory, it is just a fact that they give us. So, in the course of evolution, animals first developed with simple wings which one could glide with and later they developed larger wings which would give them the ability to run and fly from the ground. So the author is arguing that Early flying Dinosaurs were in that middle phase and not in that later phase. The fact that the main predator could not climb trees would give the dinosaurs a great reason to be in trees and evolution would favor those that were in trees. So, that eliminates one main explanation for the competing theory. Why would the dinosaurs have evolved to running and flying when they avoided their main predator by staying in trees. The running flying theory needs a reason that it would have been advantageous for the dinosaurs to have moved into that later stage, so by taking away one main cause of that (avoidance of predators) it gives us reason to think that the large wing phase hadn’t happened yet and supports the theory that the dinosaurs were still in the tree gliding flying phase that would be advantageous to them.