I got slowed down on this question because of the comparative element in the conclusion "more compelling." That got me thinking the AC had to link the newer games to the older games, but AC D just sidesteps this.

Good reminder to focus in on the C and P -- the rest is just fluff / context.

#help

My confusion on this passage stemmed from trying to decide what the main point / conclusion was. I think this ultimately led to me selecting well placed trap answers.

My reading of the MP was that the author says many mutilations can happen, and as a result, critics should recognize and not overlook this fact in their written critiques of film. I think my misconception came from the last paragraph when the author says "we tend to overlook how rarely ideal conditions apply, and this is disturbing for two reasons."

Was it too much to pull from this that the author's MP is that critics should not overlook this fact when writing their critiques? Because when I was looking at this and later questions, my focus was on ACs that specifically called upon the critics needing to acknowledge this phenomenon, as only then would their impressions be fair / not affect the audience's experience.

For question 3, this discrepancy led to me thinking AC C, despite being more strongly worded than I would have liked, was more in line with the author's overall MP, as opposed to AC A. I figured that AC A was more in line with what you would expect the author's MP would be if paragraph 4 didn't expand on the argument.

Any advice about where you guys think my breakdown of the argument went wrong would be incredible. Thanks!

Omg, Chuy Garcia used this same exact argument when debating Rahm Emanuel during the Chicago mayoral election. When Chuy stated that the city needed to hire a thousand new police officers, Rahm argued that the city couldn't afford the expense. Chuy responded by saying "You tell me we can't afford to. I tell you, we can't afford not to." (https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-chuy-garcia-edit-0226-20150225-story.html)

Wow -- figured "much originality" and "highly original" were interchangeable. Making AC B incredibly attractive. Frustrating!

Dannnnnnng -- I assumed that the spleen was made of muscle tissue :(

Knowing the definition of "discursive" would have really helped me on this passage lol

I'm still confused as to why AC C is wrong. Doesn't the premise in the argument say that if we want to know whether something is an epistemological claim we should just "ask whether any epistemologists believed it"?

But if there are many thoughts from known epistemologists, and some are or are not epistemological thoughts, how can we tell them apart from one another? I feel frustrated because this seems like a similar assumption to that in AC E.

The only change is that for AC E we don't know who's thoughts to differentiate from, while AC C suggests that we don't know which thoughts to differentiate across. #help

"Chief Scapegoat Officer" lmao

Can someone explain why the mapping led to a biconditional relationship? I mapped it as the two conditions (authorized to disburse funds and board membership) as being necessary for required disclosure.

#help (Added by Admin)

I read AC A too literally. AC A stated we need to accept something that we intuitively believe to be incorrect. During the timed section, I read this as saying the only way to solve a paradox is by accepting the conclusion. This seemed incorrect, because the stimulus said we can solve the paradox by rejecting a premise that we believe to be correct.

I therefore eliminated. *facepalm

@ said:

@ said:

I would say no. Plus what does "strongly opposed" mean? Does it include this specific bus tax? And how many is "many"? 5? 20?

Thank you! As a general rule of thumb though, for weakening/strengthening questions, I shouldn't eliminate answer choices just because they say "many" or "some" right? I have noticed a recurring pattern where answer choices containing either of those two terms are incorrect and I'm left wondering why; aside from other flaws specific to those choices, is it also because "some" and "many" are just too weak to have much of an impact on the argument?

I think what this question highlights is that AC C brings a new premise into the mix. I also figured that AC C was correct as soon as it mentioned "exempt from city taxes," but the second part of the AC brings in a new premise. I didn't realize the test makers could add a premise in the ACs -- do you know if this is normal? I haven't seen it anywhere else.

Also, I guess you could philosophically argue that those exempt from taxes are still paying them -- they are just $0. Brings to mind the argument around the healthcare individual mandate still "existing" when it was made $0.

Yeah, screw this passage.

The test writers are so good at attempting to sow doubt about the passage through the ACs in various questions. The "attracting customers" AC in Q8 and then the "reselling artwork" AC in Q10 really tries to make you think there was a subtle part of the passage that spoke to customers / selling artwork.

It's good to recognize that they do this, so as not to lose confidence in your reading on passages that you are less sure of. I've heard people argue for a strategy of "letting the questions guide" you if you are iffy on the passage -- this is an exact reason why you should not do that.

So used to hearing the phrase "double time" in the process of speeding up, that I glazed over AC C as hurting the argument -- why would the argument require that coffee sped up immune response?... smh

#help (Added by Admin)

UGHHH -- I eliminated all but AC B and AC D. Then consistently looked at how neither of them were "great" and freaked out.... Never even considered AC C after first round of elimination

Lol -- I was so confused when JY crossed out B on Q18

This question feels like social commentary of our current country... lol

Spent way too much time on this passage -- the "detail" questions of Q4 and Q5... UGH

Yeah, this is an annoying question, because it forces you to assume that ingesting hazardous waste makes that thing hazardous itself. Seems like a pretty minor assumption, but on the grand scheme of assumptions for the LSAT, you would usually think this is too much of a stretch. In these scenarios (and only these scenarios, as I think following this approach can lead to incorrect answers / wasted time if you make this a general strategy) I compare the ACs with each other.

It sounds like you narrowed it down to AC C and E. From there, you have to compare the assumption that each AC is asking you to make. AC C is asking you to assume that engineers have no way to clear the drain pipes. There is no support for that in the stimulus, and the phrase that the mussels are a "nuisance" seems mildly to suggest that this actually is not the case. After all, if there was no way to unclog the pipes, then mussels would probably be more than a nuisance -- they would be disastrous.

AC E on the other hand is asking you to make a smaller assumption, as described above. The other thing is that AC E is phrased in a much more qualified way. It is less strong, and easier to defend or agree with.

This is a sucky question, but I do think the LSAT sometimes wants to test your ability to decide between two assumptions in opposing ACs and see if you can choose the one that is "less bad." The best thing for these questions is to just not waste a ton of time on it -- choose the best answer, flag, and come back if you have time at the end.

Ugh -- didn't follow the LR strategy of first zeroing in on the P + C for Q11. If I had, AC C would have been a clear answer. Find the MC (last sentence of the first paragraph) and see which principle helps with the reasoning.

Good reminder that for LR-type questions in RC (strengthen, weaken, principle, etc.) ALWAYS reference the P + C reasoning structure before considering ACs.

Another reason for why AC D is wrong for question 6 (beyond the debate over whether or not enough evidence existed):

It says that most of the available evidence was misinterpreted. Sure, the author would probably agree that some of the evidence was misinterpreted, but most is going too far.