I love you JY

@berithhan Amazing, thank you

#feedback This passage was assigned to me as one of the two passages in the "Critique or Debate Passages Drill" at the end of the section. It would be great if the passages used in the core curriculum weren't chosen as part of the Drill.

@KevinLin It does help! Thank you so much for clarifying. You're amazing.

@KevinLin Hi, and thank you for these incredibly helpful lessons! I'm still feeling confused about how to pick up on the author's perspective when all we get is something so subtle as "lends credence to."

As per your first point, if the author doesn't explicitly disagree with a certain perspective, are we to assume that the author is supporting that perspective? If the author finished with "...ultimately other evidence shows Ginsburg's view, though plausible, is not correct," that would of course prove the author's explicit disapproval of Ginsburg's view, but I don't know if "lends credence to" is in any way comparable to the strength of "though plausible, is not correct." "Lends credence to" feels like another way of introducing a third opinion, like the introduction of Lesky's view in the Aeschylean drama passage.

Similarly, is "claims that her work" meant to be interpreted as possessing the same kind of position-signifying-language as "lends credence to"? "Lends credence to" feels a bit weaker than "claims that," and I'm not sure how to 'classify' these relatively subtle introductions of the author's viewpoint.

If we're meant to read "lends credence to" and be able to pick up on the author's stance favoring Ginsburg and Turner, I don't agree that "claims that her work supports" is neutral.

And lastly, as for your O.J. example, I'm completely lost on what your opinions are. It seems to me that there simply is new evidence that supports a particular stance, and I'm not able to discern which stance you're taking.

Sorry about the wordy questions and thank you in advance for your help. You and JY are such blessings <3

@katrina I use dashes:

Topic: debate about free will and the power of the gods in Greek dramas.

—

Snell and Barbu: see Aeschylus tragedies as related to free will and individual autonomy.

——— (longer to indicate end of paragraph as opposed to internal paragraph break)

@legallyhaya

The relationship is that the astronomer's discovery of [Stars are farther and brighter] must somehow reconcile the impossible scenario, which means [Stars are farther and brighter] must lead to either [Stars are younger] or [Universe is older]. Since the property of being [farther and brighter] concerns stars, it must be that [Stars are younger].

More fleshed out:

Earlier estimates of the distances of certain stars led to an "impossible scenario." To reconcile this, we must infer that either the stars are younger than previously thought, or the universe is older than previously thought.

Astronomer's estimates indicate that the distance between Earth and stars is greater than what "earlier estimates" thought. This means stars must also be brighter, since they must have a greater intrinsic brightness to achieve the same apparent brightness to us.

With these new estimates, the astronomer concludes that the earlier conflict is resolved, which means it must be that either the stars are younger or the universe is older than previously thought. Since these new estimates are concerned with the properties of stars (farther means brighter), it must be that farther and brighter means younger.

@SchmoozerClick on "Show question," which is under the lesson name and next to "Discussion

@drlee D is "correct" in that it resolves the discrepancy. E is the only answer that doesn't resolve the discrepancy, and therefore the correct answer for this question (RRE Except).

@Peterhinkle 1. The timeline is: tropical storms require heat and moisture -> so they form over ocean surfaces that global warming would encourage -> based on this, early discussions of global warming predicted that global warming would cause more frequent and intense tropical storms (because global warming encourages ocean temperatures that provide the right conditions for the formation of tropical storms). I'm not entirely sure on what you mean about the semantics of each answer choice, so forgive me if I've misunderstood you, but I think the fact that E is speaking hypothetically about something actively happening makes it an attractive answer. The author's conclusion is rejecting a prediction put forward by earlier discussions, rather than an actively-happening phenomenon. The actively-happening phenomenon would be the formation of tropical storms, but that's not what the author is focused on. The author cares about the predictive causes of the formation of tropical storms, which earlier discussions cite as global warming, which the author is disagreeing with. If you were dissuaded by the "probably," remember that answers to MC questions should paraphrase the conclusion—so, the "probably will not" can be conflated with the "unlikely to" in the conclusion.

2. The conclusion is denying the prediction that global warming would cause more frequent and intense tropical storms, because there's at least one other factor that would counteract, or work against, global warming in causing more tropical storms. The effect of global warming on tropical storms is a hypothesis championed by some other people, not the author. The author is saying the prediction that global warming will cause more storms will not be borne out, as in the prediction will not take place.

#help

~believes it doesn't exist --> (person is aware of a high probability of existence --> knowledge of existence of particular fact is element of an offense)

believes it exist and person is aware of a high probability of existence --> knowledge of existence of particular fact is element of an offense

Does this work for #5?

@AreebahAslam Your conclusions are valid, but your second chained conditionals is not. Not flipping it around when negating is a mistaken reversal, which leads to mistaking the NC for SC or vice versa (the "cookie cutter mistake" JY talks about). As stated in your conclusion, the correct contrapositive of the chained conditionals would be: /solve any case → /make useful deductions → /find clues /visit crime scene.

For Q2, I see where you're coming from, but I can't say that I agree. We are not making any assumptions in understanding this argument, because the premise states that it is a time-consuming hobby. And we are meant to take every premise as the truth. Try not to make assumptions where you don't have to, because you'll end up confusing yourself, and the test itself is already confusing as is.

Generally speaking, unreasonable assumptions tend to weaken arguments. But, in this case, the argument is not weakened by "time-consuming," as it is not an assumption, but a premise. I wouldn't say confusion automatically discredits an argument, because the LSAT is worded in a very confusing way, and I guess confusion can be subjective, whereas assumptions aren't really.

For Q4, I'm not sure if I understand your question correctly, but the conclusion is claiming that it is "necessary to incorporate other security strategies before we roll out the new systems," because "Even if we upgrade our IT infrastructure, unexpected software bugs and systems vulnerabilities will always be a constant threat to the reliability of our network."

Questions are definitely confusingly worded, but they aren't badly worded. All subjects mentioned in LSAT questions/answer choices will be very clear, unlike "buy shirts there at less than the store’s cost.”

Definitely. Which is why the placement of any indicator is very important, and we shouldn't declare something a conclusion just because there's an indicator present.

The premises of the cat argument are that the cat is looking self-satisfied while licking its paws as it does after a meal. These are (subjective) inferences made based on the cat's behavior. The argument relies on these inferences/assumptions to conclude that it must have been the cat that ate the trash. A strong argument shouldn't rely on assumptions. An argument based on assumptions immediately opens itself to criticism on the grounds that the conclusion relies on assumptions (which is a pretty common answer choice for flaw identification questions in LR).

If, for example, the premises were something like "there was no one else home other than the cat and the cat has a history of going through trash and the cat smelled like salmon and its paws were covered in salmon," that would actually lend support to the conclusion that the cat ate the leftover dinner.

Of course, as other people commented, the tiger argument also relies on assumptions to work. But, the premise of the tiger argument is not itself an assumption. As you said, we have evidence that tigers are aggressive—this does not require any assuming on our end. As for the trash argument, the premises themselves are assumptions.