Just to reiterate...if it makes your gameboard too confusing, dont do it!! I am going through games and the cleaner the gameboard, the better I do.

Does anyone have a list of similar flaw questions they could share here?

Does anyone know what PT the question about sea sickness is from that JY is referring to? THanks!

(C) forces you to make all kinds of assumptions, which is how you get tricked on strengthen and weaken questions. Just because Cruel Herd performs at clubs popular to students means nothing. Does Jackie frequent these clubs? We don't know that. Even if we did, that would not be as strong of a strengthener as (A), which basically says that MV's musical arranger is now CH's musical arranger. That is a much tighter answer choice. (D) can also be tricky. This means that what Jackie listens to on a regular basis is rock. Does that mean she would like Cruel Herd? Who knows?

(D) is a common wrong answer choice for a MP question. (D) isnt even mentioned in the stimulus. We know that there is a need for expansion into new manufacturing areas, but that doesnt mean that businesses must do that.

This was also easy for me to see in a phenomenon/hypothesis situation. The phenomenon (effect) is that humans have so many diseases in common with cats. The cause is that many disease are genetically based, and cats are genetically closer to humans than are any other mammals except non human primates. Therefore, to weaken, you can say no cause effect or no effect but cause. Here, answer choice (B) is no cause but effect. Most diseases that humans have in common with cats (effect) have no genetic bases (no cause).

(E) is a trap and does nothing to the argument.

JY's explanation is great here. Couldn't explain it better myself. I think it also touches on no cause no effect, where if dioxin isn't present, you dont have the abnormalities, but when dioxin is present, then you have the abnormalities, so that would show that dioxin is the cause of these abnormalities. The second part, which talks about decomposition slowly in the environment, is taken care of by (B) which shows that the normal river carries it AWAY from the fish. So now you are back to the first cause to effect and no cause no effect, which means dioxin is the cause. Easy when broken down but hard as hell under time.

If its not hunting, then is it necessary for display? That is a big jump from P to C.

(A) is a common wrong answer choice in that "unpalatable" is different from "safe to drink"

Look at the gap between P and C and stick to fundamentals. The first line talks about how there are no new cases of naturally occurring polio. There is a description of what OPV is, and then it switches to changing to IPV. What if IPV is worse aka causes new cases of naturally occurring polio? With (B), you can switch to IPV and you don't need to worry or deal with this additional baggage of OPV. How does this weaken the argument?

(D) is also tricky, but we are talking about a greater risk to the US. That is the scope. (D) tries to use the same terms of greater risk but talks about the countries we are exporting to. Eliminate.

Devil is in the details. Maybe this should become my anthem. The stimulus starts off with "there are certain pesticides...". I fell for the trap in (B) which talks about "most pesticides". The argument can still stand that "certain pesticides" that are banned in the US are manufactured and exported.

In an environment with gambling, kids will not develop good character. Is that the case? (B) shows that you can produce kids with good character in an environment with gambling. The key is "other areas"

The devil is in the details. The first sentence talks about certain waves of sunlight. The second sentence is the conclusion which talks about putting sunblock regarding waves of sunlight (turns out to be a different set, but this is such a small detail that you can gloss over it. And the last sentence is another premise, which talks about and defines adequate sunblock. What if skin cancer is caused by certain waves of sunlight but sunblock is caused by SEPARATE waves?

I approached this with a correlation/causation mindset. I didnt get it right under time but saw afterwards how cookie cutter this question is too! You have the fact that not pursuing research is correlated with not getting those positions, but then you conclude that not pursing research "tends to bias" admin from picking these professors. So its C--.E, as in cause to effect. What if you have a different cause (professors who do their research) and the same effect aka they also dont get the same jobs? Thats answer choice (B). I got it down to 50/50 and fell into the trap of (A). We dont care if there are fewer scientific positions to nonscientific. We are talking about research and scientific positions and what we can conclude from that. Nonscientific is out of scope.

I fell into the trap of (D). But this is a good reminder that when you see a correlation and you conclude causation, you only have a few options to, in this case, weaken the answer choice.Hunt for that answer and move on.

Fell into the trap of (A). (A) states that you have the antilock breaking system, but the argument of the P to the C could still stand that it is TrackAid that is the only car for you. We need something to offset TrackAid.

This sucked, but I think "need" really jumped out at me for answer choice (D). I was stuck between (A) and (D), and (A) is a good reminder that you can weaken an argument by showing a faulty method.

At base, this talks about genetic differences, and then concludes that it is a different ancestor. So A-->B, or P--> C. But what (B) does is that it shows there is no relation. You could be genetically very similar and not have a common ancestor or you could be genetically very far apart and have a different ancestor.

This is a common trick on the LSAT. In the sufficiency condition, they have an elaborate idea, in this case, activities that pose risks to life. It isnt just activities. The answer choices, of course, give us activities, but not activities that pose risks to life. We can only trigger the statement if we have the full idea in the sufficient condition.

Could you also say that phobia is neither sufficient nor necessary?

Could someone explain between the human and non-human context and why it is still okay to use lawgic to bridge the premise to the conclusion here?

JY's explanation made me laugh! Love moments like this as I am drilling

Did anyone else have this problem...when it came to the conditional structure, I assumed that the "buy" in the premise and the "buy" in the conclusion were the same, so I was thinking the following could happen:

Premise:X--> Y--> BUY

Conclusion: A--> BUY

So I was thinking the missing gap would be (A--> X)

Then I saw that the conclusion was prescriptive, in which case you can't chain it up that way, and therefore the missing gap and assumption in the argument was a standard P-->C assumption.