the anticipation is unbearable!

did anyone get anything yet???

When is this? I'm in NYC and would love to join

Will the explanations be released before the November lsat?

Necessary Assumption

c: Government by referendum tend to diminish the welfare of society

p: more likely power distributed evenly, less likely that large-scale government projects will receive funding (project designed to benefit everyone)

a) if it is not he case that large-scale government project enhance the welfare of society, then the argument falls apart.

B) Executed by government is irrelevant/no bearing

c) democratic process irrelevant

d) well no this is the opposite of what the argument is saying- it's saying that equal distribution of power would actually diminish welfare of society

e) this just gets to the premise--and by eliminating any other way of distributing power, how are we connecting this to the welfare of society?

Necessary Assumption

Conclusion: Increasing penalties for transgressions may amplify people's tendency to ignore the welfare of others

Premise: threat of harsh punishment decreases tendency to feel guilt and that reduces tendency to commit transgressions

a) morality is not in question here, and even if they were, I think this answer is trying to get at some sort of assumption that the argument does not depend on

b) if you flip this - that it is not the case that some actions involve ignoring the welfare of others are transgressions - then our argument falls apart.

c) how does this bridge the P/C? And being concern with own well being has no bearing on this argument

d) the execution has no bearing on this argument

e) extremely severe transgressions is too extreme

Answers were close to JY, but with the exception of B/C - you cannot bring outside knowledge. what the program managers did with their discoveries is not clear and we cannot make a conclusion on what was not provided in the passage.

This is a typical principal question - essentially the passage is saying that because of budgetary pressures, safety risks wer ignored.

a) this in a broad sense does encapsulate what the passage is stating -- trying to make things cost effectives can make safety risks increase

b) scientific progress is what I have issue with here. Yes this is a space exploration program, but to jump and say that safety risks are ignored for progress was not discussed.

c) safety often being sacrificed is not proposed here--we have one instance of a program manager uncovering something, but we can't say this consistently happens

d) what was the mistake? there wasn't a mistake per say, just pressure on behalf of the bureaucracy

e) this is just too extreme--concluding something not discussed in passage.

Q: Resolve/Reconcile Except

Why is it that in one city where seatbelt laws were strictly enforced reduced fatalities by 7% but others that had similar laws showed traffic deaths staying the same?

a) if speed limits were increased, then that can be a causal explanation for the balancing of traffic deaths with seatbelt laws

b) again, we have an answer choice that balances the effects of the seatbelt law and the increase number of pedestrians included in the survey/record

c) like the answers above, increase traffic can balance the effect of seatbelt laws

d) this explains why the numbers have stayed the same: the seatbelt law has had no effect

e) if the people not wearing seat belts were killed, then the law actually had an effect. This doesn't explain why the law didn't have an effect which is why this s the correct choice

We know this is a causal argument, namely that the VDT caused the increase headaches on the basis that those who wore it reported having more headaches than those who did not.

What would weaken this?

a) their participation in regular health programs does not weaken the argument that vdt caused the headaches

b) the severity of the headaches weakens the premise, but not the premise conclusion

c) previous studies suffering fm eye stran does not weaken the p/c relation

d) this is correct--if the office workers overestimated the the time spent, then the study becomes invalid

e) this is not the answer because it's just making the argument stronger (that nothing else could have caused it because all else is equal)

P1: Paradox - recent research shows that nations are willing to take risks when losses are larger than gains

P2: Previous studies - previous research (Economists) show that people take risks when loss is low + example. New studies show the opposite.

P3: Reconciliation - nations do this loss-driven strategy on armed conflict and over what they believe has already been taken from them (ex of Falkland island)

MP: Outline new research in the field of risk taking, specific to international relations/government dec making

VP: Author, economists (previous research) versus new scholarship

Tone: Neutral, explanatory

Strengthen:

C: Cognitive psychotherapy is more likely to be effective at overcoming psychological problems than others

P: Only conscious beliefs are under the patient’s control and cognitive therapy focuses on changing a patients conscious beliefs

Assumption: psychological problems have nothing to do with unconscious beliefs

a) if this is true, then the argument weakens.

b) Focus of difficulty makes this incorrect, it’s not the difficulty but rather the fact that cognitive does this and others cannot

c) This in a way restates the premise, not necessarily strengthening that it is more effective than others.

d) Yes- Negate sufficient – If Psychotherapy that focuses on changing the patient’s unconscious beliefs is effective then it changes the believes that are under the patients control. Because we know that unconscious beliefs do not do this, this is the right answer.

e) Other psychological states are irrelevant here

Correction why I was wrong - B - no, it's nothing to do with difficulty. It has to do with the fact that B strengthens why the other therapies are less effective, which B does.

D is incorrect because it doesn't strengthen that gap to provide cog is better than others.

P1: Phenomena - increase rise in temperature is supported by evidence, and one explanation is that it's the greenhouse effect

P2: Alternative explanations - previous studies have wrong predictions, new studied incorporate sulfates

P3: Alternative explanation - solar energy,and greenhouse effect better effect

MP: Greenhouse gases are the best explanation of recent increase in temperature

Tone: positive

View - proponents v opponents, author

Sufficient assumption

C: Critics who argue that beauty is a characteristic of leg art are mistaken

P: All leg art calls for concrete intervention

SA: Beauty must not call for intervention (D)

Update after reading JY's explanation:

B/C/E - wrong for a different reason - it's because the logical indicator is going the wrong way,

Principle:

The principle here is that if the procedure brings about death, then the technician is guilty of manslaughter.

A) Too extreme--any time a medical procedure could result in death covers way too many procedures. in this instance, it's only under the case that the patient had provided consent.

b) the high risk brings about irrelevant information not justifying our argument

c) the focus on intention here makes this argument wrong. at no point was intention an issue.

d) this is the principle - it over compensations with if and only if, but it doesn't make it wrong or incorrect.

e) this misses the principle all together.

Conclusion: politicians should adopt the scholar's charitable opposition to its opponent because it may persuade more voters

Premise: scholars support their oppositions to make their position more attractive

Context: politicians attack opponents to support their position

a: this is the flaw--scholars have a completely different audience than the general public politicians face

b: this certainly would be a difficulty, but not the flaw

d: if they were suited to similar audiences, then this argument would be ok

e: this is irrelevant

@jenz835 said:

Anyone interested in setting up a date to go over the September test?

I would!

Great suggestions, thanks everyone!

@rachelhankers864 said:

Is it just me or does anyone else feel like they lost traction and intensity that you had leading up to the September exam, spent all your energy on the week of the test, gave your best on test day, and now the drive + motivation is somewhat defused? I can't seem to pick up my pace again (and it's been almost 3 weeks already).

If anyone is going through the same phase, please let me know you're out there! Feels like I just went through an intense break-up and in dire need of SOME closure (aka September score).

*pulls hair

I'm so glad you posted this! I am in the same boat. It doesn't help that I keep checking my LSAC account to see if the scores were miraculously posted even though I know we will have to wait till the end of the week. I want to start studying again but it's just hard to pick up!

If anyone has advice on best ways to start studying again, that would be welcomed :smile:

To be honest i can't even remember which LR questions were in which section. I did have the LR-RC-LR-LR-LG, so which one does the dolphin one fall?

I think there may be some confusion about your breakdown of the argument. This may help--the argument is the following:

Sub-conclusion:

C: Roehmer's opinion has a polarizing effect on national politics

P: she impugn's (calls into question) the motives of her adversaries which then alienates those with opposing views.

Main Conclusion:

C: This alienation/impugning is not a problem

P: She's just trying to please her readers

Do you see the contradiction? The fact that in the sub-conclusion the Commentator is stating impugning may be a problem and in the major conclusion, concluding that it may not actually be a problem for Roehmer is the contradiction or hypocrisy.

JY is saying that you cannot do the ad hominem attack for hypocrisy. So in his example, he uses the doctor---you cannot criticize a doctor for saying smoking is wrong because he himself smokes. That's a different flaw than what is presented in this argument.

Thank you so much!