Environmental Problems(not result of G) being solved require EE changes. The last statement tells us if not EE then few EP solved. If not EE then we know we are not in the world of Environmental Problems(not result of G) being solved. So if few are being solved, they must be in the set of G (result of government).

the other side of the coin: most environmental problems are part of the (not result of G) set

I eliminated C because the stimulus tells us we often use electronic calculators (a computer) to do the human calculation/arithmetic we do to verify proofs that are not computer dependent. And just because you used a calculator (computer) does not mean you are any less certain of the the proof. You're just using a calculator (out of convenience) because you don't want to do arithmetic in your head.

Stimulus: BW mag sells anthologies which generate $$$ that covers most of their operating expenses. Your magazine has similar taste in poems as BW mag. So, if your mag starts selling anthologies, you could depend less on donations.

At first the conclusion seems mild enough that i think , eh could be true, if we generate extra money by doing this thing, we could depend less on donations, even if it is just a couple of bucks.

But this is the LSAT, so we have to find the problem here. Well, what if there is some reason that BW generates money from anthology sales that does not apply to your magazine? What if BW sells in a poem loving community with100k ppl with money to spend and your magazine sells in a city where people are illiterate and broke?

In this case, you wouldn't be able to generate a stream of money by selling anthologies and you could not depend less on donations. The stimulus just tells me one weak similarity and ignores the many reasons of why your magazine would not see the same outcome if they do this one thing BW has had success with.

I skipped E because it wasn't as obvious. In review, I realized this explanation is hinting at a reason BW's anthology sales are successful (BW anthology sells because it has poems by famous poets), and that even if your mag recreated this anthology sale thing, we wouldn't see the same outcome because of this difference bw BW and the other magazine.

A tells us neither mags depend on donations to cover most op expenses. Eh, our conclusion set the bar low enough with "could" that this didn't seem relevant. I guess your magazine could still generate money by selling anthologies. Not weakened.

B some poets published in BW were rejected by other mags. This is not a potential explanation of why BW making money selling anthologies but would not for your magazine.

C Something similar about both mags will not help me weaken. next

D talks about BW expenses not covered by the anthology sales. This is irrelevant and the fact that BW depends on donations for the expenses in D is not a potential explanation of why BW anthology sales generate money and why it would not be true of our magazine.

Do not miss the tend-leads to language as a correlation causation flaw. See question 6 in this same section https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-57-section-2-question-06/

So old foraging bees tend to have bigger brains than the young ones that are usually not out foraging. We know foraging requires high cognition. So it must be that the foraging leads to bigger brains.

The conclusion uses this tend relationship (foraging and big brains) to then state the foraging causes big brains. This is a problem. what if bees being old just cause them to have bigger brains, they are after all, more developed.

A and C both compare foraging bees to foraging bees. This does not help weaken a claim about foraging bees.

B is also about foraging bees and how their brains don't shrink when they retire. Eh

D talks about what we see in some species of bees, this AC starts off weak, and in the end, it does not weaken. It kind of tells us what the stimulus tells us - old bees have bigger brains than young ones

E says old foraging bees have the same size brain as old non-foraging bees. So the outcome is present for both groups but because the foraging isn't we cant really say its the foraging that causes big brains. This definitely weakens our argument.

C says some people are allergic to certain medications. Nevermind the fact i don't know what 'certain medications' refer to, this does not weaken our conclusion. Herbs can still always be allowed to be prescribed. They probably just won't in cases where patients are allergic. No matter, the doc can still prescribe.

It's like saying some things would not be safe for me to do. But I and others still always have the freedom of doing them.

A says more effective medication is neglected in favor of the herbs, which you always have the opportunity of prescribing. If this is the case, then maybe herbs should not always be allowed to be prescribed. Eliminating herbs as always an option would help curb this behavior of neglecting effective medicine.

I knew that our answer would point to a difference between cities MF and P because the problem with this argument is that it assumes what works for MF will work for P.

D is wrong because:

You have to make assumptions --> you can think this AC weakens the argument because you assume that since the pop of sporadic donors is significantly > reg blood donors then going through them in Pulaski would be a better avenue for increasing the blood supply. But you could also say that even if the sporadic pop is greater they would still be useless and the best way could still be through the reg blood donors.

D does not state a clear difference between MF and P. does not explain why what works for MF will not work for P.

E tells us in P most of the reg blood donors maxed out their donation limits. I think a necessary assumption of this argument it that in P, the reg blood donors will be able to donate more frequently, as this set was able to in MF. E directly addresses this assumption by telling us this similarity does not hold in P.

I thought C was saying the claim in question is why we are having this discussion in the first place. I thought the claim was like context and introducing the subject (trend of moral complexity/humanizing)

1) Note you can still state this argument without even mentioning this claim (which is not even a premise). Our support comes from the premise that vampires are the most powerful rep of evil and this is why the critic is claiming that humanizing them is unfortunate. And 2) C is actually saying this claim is what makes this argument necessary/necessary to address. The claim in question does not do that. As JY states, we don't really need to have this argument. Kim, there's people that are dying. Vampires are not high priority rn.

B is saying that the claim places a limit on how far we can go with generalizing the conclusion. So from the argument you could go crazy and say humanizing things are are powerful representations of evil are unfortunate - the joker, ted bundy, etc. But the claim is limiting these generalizations because it says look, the overall trend towards moral complexity is a good thing. Knowing this, i can't go around making this conclusion about other symbols of evil.

i think my first time ever taking the test I got a 149. My final timed score was 165. I was working full-time and aimed to study about 3 hours 6/7 days of week. For LR i recommend Loophole by Ellen Cassidy. Do her drills, record wrong answers, and connect wrong answers. What i mean by this is that say you got a flaw question and a weaken question wrong. sometimes the answers to these questions both touch on a similar answer topic ex/maybe they're both about proportions/sets. You'll start picking up on what these questions are testing. For Logic Games i used the classifications here https://www.powerscore.com/gamesbible/lsat-logic-games-classification/ to do drills of the game types. I drilled 25-30 games/wk in the following game type order: Basic linear, advanced linear, grouping, grouping/linear, pure sequencing. Five games day 1, same set next day, revisit the same 5 a week from first completion, revisit same 5 10 days from first completion. I started stacking sets so by day two sometimes i'd do 10 timed games. Make notes of inferences u missed & what you should look out for next time each time u take the set. I used the excel sheet this user provided https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/19326/all-the-tips-that-worked-for-me-my-spreadsheet

goodluck!

I chose A under timed and wasn't fully convinced. On blind review i eliminated A because the stimulus tells us the wolves were introduced for the job of curbing the moose pop. Yet the moose prospered. A just tells us introducing wolves tends to discourage other predators. This still does not explain why the wolves did not succeed at hunting the moose enough to get their numbers down. Regardless of other predators, why did the wolves not succeed here?

C gives us an explanation for why the moose pop increased despite the introduction of the wolves - The wolves hunted disease ridden moose. So they're helping eliminate the sick moose that would have gone around infecting other moose who probably would all have died from their disease. So by doing this, the wolves are making the population of moose healthier, which helps them thrive.

i did not pick up on this during timed conditions despite the glaringly obvious use of the word "percentage" that the problem with this argument deals with a percentage/proportion.

Anyways, the argument is talking about how the proportion (harvest/total fish in ocean) of fish caught increased steadily from '60 - '10. But the harvest did not increase (either stayed constant or decreased) after '05.

so you know:

harvest/total fish in ocean = ↑ (the percentage is increasing)

if the top variable remains unchanged after '05 but the percentage increases, the bottom variable must be decreasing for the percentage to increase. This is AC C - the total fish in the ocean decreased. if the bottom variable increases the percentage decreases.

I was down to A and B and chose B because i thought it was a stronger weaken answer choice.

B just says being opposed to higher taxes does not guarantee being a good leader. This does not weaken because T could still have this quality and although it does not guarantee he will be a good leader, it could still make him a better leader compared to the others and maybe having this stance affects what type of leader T will be.

A says being opposed to higher taxes is completely irrelevant to being a good leader. this weakens because now the whole basis of this argument - T being opposed to higher taxes- is completely irrelevant to establishing if he will be a good/better leader. Idgaf if T is opposed to higher taxes then, what does that matter?

Due to my limited knowledge of politics and drawing a blank to the word bureaucracy the first thing that came to mind for “ideal bureaucracy” was a leslie knope govt. So, in my paraphrase: I imagined leslie knope and her endless binders on regs and policies. She has a binder for everything. She will have an ever-expanding binder collection of regs because people can complain. And in complaining, people bring up new issues not covered in her binders.

But then I thought well leslie, true, people can complain, but what if no one thinks of anything to complain about that is not in any of your binders? What if everyone is just a sheep mindlessly carrying out their life and not thinking of complaining? What if there is not one person present to complain?

I looked for an answer choice that resembled any of my questions above.

A- I don’t care about whether a leslie knope govt will continue to provide appeal services after a complaint is made. I don’t care about your appeal services leslie.

B- I don’t need all material in leslie’s binders to have been a result of one or more complaints. She’s very smart and came up with binder material herself.

C- I eliminated this question because I skipped over the word permanently. This is necessary to the AC and is what makes this AC necessary. Leslie is assuming she will always have people to complain about problems not covered by her binder. If I negate this AC (correct me if I am wrong) I get: Leslie will permanently be without complaints. Well there goes her supposedly endless and growing binder collection.

D- I don’t need a condition for leslie;s govt to reach its primary goal. Next

E- All complaints will reveal a problem not in Leslie’s binder. Too strong, I don’t need this.

JY, thanks for making these videos funny. idk if you intend to, but it means a lot to someone who occasionally gets anxiety when they study

In my BR it finally occurred to me why A is right (smh):

Weaken question: weaken support premise gives to conclusion

Premise: 12 mosquitoes killed / +300 insects killed

Conclusion: device will not sig aid in controlling mosquito pop.

Essentially we conclude the device will not aid because a measly 12 mosquitoes out of 300+ were killed.

I anticipated well what if it killed all M (mosquitoes) available? Which is what A gives us, no live M found after. Great, they were all annihilated. This weakens our support structure, since how can we now conclude that this device isn't effective if all M are dead? Sounds pretty damn effective to me.

I realize now why B trapped my ass: I had an intuition for a proportion when i was taking the timed test and B tells us a greater proportion of insects attracted were not M (mosquitoes). In BR i thought well idgaf what proportion of insects attracted were M and what proportion were not M. The only proportion/percentage/ratio I care about is the M killed out of the total M. The relationship between M killed and M total. Again, A tells us this by saying ALL, 100% of M killed.

I was stuck b/w D and E. The reason why i was unsure on E is because it seemed too broad/inclusive and usually NA are subtle.

D says (paraphrased, please correct if wrong): not all conditions treated effectively by medicine are treatable by reduction of stress

from our premises we are given information that some cases HBP can be treated effectively with medicine. And if we are concluding that some cases HBP must not be caused by stress, because stress caused illnesses are treatable only by reduction of stress, then we have to find an assumption that tells us that medicine (referred to in our premise) is not reducing stress, they are mutually exclusive.

D does not give us this, we are still unsure of whether the medicine is reducing stress.

E specifically tells us medicine (used to treat HBP) does not reduce stress.

for 26 I eliminated B because the issue is not a "procedural controversy." If anything, the procedure (method) in and outside of the courtroom is to ask questions/cross examine/etc. whatever else they do. The recent studies shed light on an issue with the types of questions not the procedure, or question asking, itself. And this procedure of asking questions is also not controversial, nowhere in the passage do we receive support for a controversy.