Okay most people confused about A and D. In these kinds of situations where both ACs seem iffy, important to not find the CORRECT answer, but find the better answer.

Let's look at AC A: AC A assumes this--> from looking JUST at allotted time, we would be able to infer how much access is allowed/people have for these shows

Let's look at AC D: AC D assumes this--> from looking JUST at allotted time, we would be able to infer how many people tune into these shows, AND how many people tune into domestic shows, so that we can compare these numbers to see who watches more.

In this case ^ which assumption do you think is again...better? not about which is absolutely correct, but about which is better. And here, I would say AC A.

For #18, how is "undeveloped" supported? Passage says "swing had run its course" which I read as "swing was developed to its limits." I thought it was fully developed and people were just trying to force it even after it reached its potential

B also says "regain control"

ah, this is where it started

"don't even try to pronounce this I know you don't know what this is"

tough questions

I got you. Practice SLOW. Before you can practice fast. It's like learning to play any instrument. Do untimed, slow. Develop your step-by-step routine on each question. And then speed it up from there. Once you practice it slow (over and over), this mechanical approach will become muscle memory.

#help

even if a disease is eliminated, one can still suffer from it can't they? So like let's say COVID has been eliminated from my body; yet to this day I am suffering from its aftermath. In that case how does negation of AC E wreck the argument?

negation of AC E says --> those with normal levels of C will suffer from gum disease.

EVEN if that was true, the conclusion that gum disease is eliminated could still be true can't it?

(A has equal chance to be selected as B) is NOT the same as (each item has equal chance to be selected)

e.g.: there are 7 Apples and 3 Bananas in basket. there is a 7/10 chance you pick Apples and 3/10 chance you pick Banana. BUT this is in terms of Apples and Bananas. When considering EACH item individually in the basket, aka when considering the chance of picking ONE single fruit (that be apple or banana) inside the basket—> each item of fruit has a 1/10 chance to be picked.

So, to say that the chance that you pick Apple is 5/10 while the chance you pick Banana is 5/10 is wrong—which AC B is saying. You have a 70% chance of choosing apple, while 10% chance of choosing a certain single apple in the basket.

And even if AC B was talking about Railroad companies in Ostronia, the stimulus basically says "(ALL) railroad companies in Ostronia --> disregard." So even if AC B said "few railroad companies in Ostronia do not disregard" that would actually be false for sure

This is true for every Necessary Assumption. Follow this template:

1.) what's the conclusion

2.) what's the premise

3.) negate an answer choice and see if it wrecks the relationship between conclusion and premise.

1.) C: harming out old biz will be good overall for economy

2.) P: will bring in new residents, will bring in new businesses

3.) negate AC:

AC B negated: current economy all based on old biz —> SO? Premise still stands. And Conclusion still stands. Even if current economy all based on old biz, harming old biz could still be good overall for economy because P: will bring in new residents, will bring in new businesses. So does not destroy the P & C relationship.

AC E negated: harming old biz --> must discourage new businesses coming. premise & conclusion affected. We are literally knocking out one of the 2 premises (will bring in new businesses).

So basically skeleton of argument is: this new machine will be perfect cuz another machine will create it. But what if the machine that's DOING the creating is flawed? Then this new machine more than likely also be flawed.

Okay one tip: things that are confusing like this you can always make it super, super simple. don't even need to have complicated ideas. Every fancy argument in LSAT if you strip it down, all comes down to an infant-sized argument that is not that big as it claims to be. SO...let's look at this argument:

for diagramming purposes let's say ( ) is a computer and X is a BAD microprocessor. so ( X ) is a computer that has a bad microprocessor inside it.

Interviewer basically says: there was a ( X ). How did this happen

Spokesperson: microprocessors manually checked, so some X slipped out

Interviewer: how you make sure X not going to slip out again?

Spokesperson: X not even going to be created from now on since computers are going to create the microprocessors.

FLAW: sure it's good that computers are going to create microprocessors. But what if that computer creating the microprocessor itself is ( X )? (a computer with a bad microprocessor). Then, a ( X ) that's creating the microprocessor --> would create another X.

we also don't know if the Bracken cave bats are 'representative' member. It never concludes about all bats nor does it say this group is 'representative'

For those who would like an algebra explanation:

let's say

1990's tally: (X - Y) = A

1991's tally: (A+Z) - T = B

Stimulus is telling us: A > B

extra clarification X & Z are amount mined that specific year, Y & T are amount consumed that specific year. A & B are the tally of that year. Also, 1991 equation includes (A+Z) not just Z because A from 1990 carries over to the next year.

SO.... back to the equation. If stimulus is saying A>B, we can do the math:

(X-Y) > (A+Z) - T

(X-Y) > (X-Y) + Z - T

subtract X-Y both sides & add T to the other side and you get

T > Z

What does this mean? T (amount consumed in 1991) > Z (amount mined in 1991) --> which is answer choice B

How is AC A for Question 24 not right? It says the difference between (cool middle & high latitudes) vs (warm tropics) causes the circumpolar vortex. For AC A, it says "tropics are warmer than normal."

If that's the case, then technically there would be greater difference between the (middle & high latitudes) and the (tropics), causing circumpolar vortex. #help (Added by admin)

Q16

Why AC A is wrong: "care little about what happens to wetlands" /= "motive of those against conservation." What if (those against conservation)'s motive is to place fancy buildings on the wetlands? Then their motive ISN'T caring little about what happens. It's actually that they do care what happens to wetlands (they want it destroyed).

So answer choice A is trying to tempt us to think "yes, author does assume critics' motives are motives of those against conservation--since motives of those against conservation are 'caring little about what happens to wetlands.'" BUT we don't know that that's the motive of those against conservation.

never-mind disregard what I said ^ JY's explanation is better:

Negation of E:

faults Don't produce at least once = Don't have to produce at least once = minimum is 0. Max is still 1/100. So, if there is a fault that just erupted, then that would still be the safest even with negation of E. So negation of E doesn't destroy argument nor does it do anything to argument.

My biggest mistake: I was confusing max and min with PROBABILITY of earthquake happening. Nope 1/100 doesn't mean there's 1/100 chance of happening. It just means maximum is 1 out of 100. Two different concepts.

Okay. Everyone is confused between C and E. I'm assuming you know why is C is correct but don't know why E is INCORRECT. I got you.

Negate E and it says, "faults don't produce at least 1/100" meaning Fault#1 can be 1/100 while Fault#2 can be 0/100. From this, we think: "hmm that means even if earthquake just happened at Fault#1, Fault#2 is safer since Fault#2 is 0/100!"

BUT THAT is where we make the mistake. 0/100 is not never. 0/100 simply means 0/100. What if Fault#2's chances are 1/101?

That means that if Fault#1 just had an earthquake today, then the chances of next earthquake are 1/next 100 years. Meanwhile what if Fault#2 had an earthquake 2 years ago? That means the chances for Fault#2 are 1/next 99 years (101-2). Then in terms of where to put the site, Fault#1(1/100) vs Fault#2(1/101), Fault#1 would STILL be the safest. Which makes the conclusion still valid and thus doesn't destroy the argument.

great great explanation as to why it's not D

Super simple if you look at it this way:

1.) Justice --> citizens capable of criticizing

2.) Purpose is deterrence --> expert stuff

3.) citizens --> /expert stuff

Conclusion: /justice

ask yourself, how do you go from (citizens --> /expert stuff) to /justice?

more specifically, which premise (1, 2, or 3) gives you /justice?

answer is premise number 1: /citizens capable of criticizing --> /Justice

so all you need to do is connect the last premise (citizens --> /experts) with first premise (/citizens capable of criticizing --> /Justice) and you get the conclusion =

citizens --> /experts + /citizens capable of criticizing => /Justice

look in the answer choice for that connecting block:

/experts + /citizens capable of criticizing

but at the same time, if we applied this same standard to answer choice A, we also don't know about when the recession happened

Okay. I got you all. Here is simplified version:

Premise: rice making countries give small amount to world while rest to their people

Conclusion: thus changes in production in these rice making countries = will lead to changes in rice available to world

EXAMPLE: let's say a rice making country makes 100 rice. 90 rice available to local (90%), 10 available to world (10%).

-Argument says: if this rice making country goes from making 100 rice to (let's say) like 50 rice, then the rice available to world will decrease accordingly. So, since this country is making 50 now, they will make 45 rice available to local (90%), 5 available to world (10%).

-BUT why does the argument assume this rice making country will always have this 90%, 10% rule?

What if, when production changes from (100 rice to 50 rice), this country actually goes like "let's be generous and give more to the world" and actually STILL gives 10 rice to the world? In that case, although production decreased (100 rice to 50 rice), it would be 40 rice available to local, while 10 available to world. In that case production changes actually didn't change the #of rice available to world (still 10 available to world)

Answer choice C is basically saying that

What I don't understand is that I feel like Answer choice C is over-riding the premise (which I'm not sure if we're allowed to do.) the premise CLEARLY says old cars account for 30% of airpollution. Then don't we HAVE to accept that it accounts for 30% no matter the circumstances?

in other words, even if C is correct (that old cars don't run anymore), some way or another they STILL account for 30% of air pollution?

#help (Added by Admin)