Hi 7Sagers,

Can anyone help me understand why (E) is not the correct AC for this question?

Here's the breakdown of the stimulus and my understanding of each AC:

P1: Without info that could only have come from someone present at the secret meeting between the finance minister and the leader of the opposition party, the news story that forced the finance minister to resign could not have been written

P2: No one witnessed the meeting except the minister’s aide.

Conclusion: It is clear that the FM was brought down not by any of his powerful political enemies but by his own trusted aide.

Flaw: The minister’s aide is one of the many, not the only sources of information. It could have been the opposition party members who got in touch with the leader of the opposition party who attended the meeting. You can't definitely conclude that it's the FM's trusted aide that brought down the FM.

(A) drawing a conclusion on the basis of evidence that provides equally strong support for a competing conclusion. ⇒ Correct. It can equally support the opposite conclusion: No one but the minister’s trusted aide witnessed the meeting. Therefore, it is clear the FM was brought down by his powerful political enemies.

(B) assuming without warrant that if one thing cannot occur (=FM brought down) without another thing’s already having occurred (=the minister’s aide leaking info), then the earlier thing cannot occur without bringing about the later thing. ⇒ Not the right flaw. doesn’t work for this argument which does not care about the temporal order / chronology of the two events.

(C) confusing evidence that a given outcome on one occasion was brought about in a certain way with evidence that the same outcome on a different occasion was brought in that way. ⇒ Not descriptively accurate. There are no two occasions presented where the evidence can be used for the same outcome but in different occasions.

(D) basing its conclusion on evidence that is almost entirely irrelevant to the point at issue. ⇒ P1 and P2 are relevant to the point at issue (FM being brought down).

(E) treating evidence that a given action (=the trusted aide witnessing the secret meeting) contributed to bringing about a certain effect (FM being brought down) as though that evidence established that the given action by itself was sufficient to bring about that effect.

I was divided between (A), the right AC, and (E) and went with (E).

I'm not sure if I've understood the vague / complex sentence structure of (E) correctly. I must be missing out on sth or misinterpreting the argument structure. . . please share how you tackled this question!

Thank you :)

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [first set of words]"

Hi everyone! I've taken 3 months break form studying after writing my first LSAT in November. I completed and submitted my application to two schools in January and I'm currently waiting for the decision. But my LSAT score (160) is not as competitive as I hoped it'd be so if I don't get accepted, I want to improve my LSAT score and reapply this cycle. As I'm waiting for the decision, I want to get the ball rolling! What are your process / tips / strategies go get back into study mode after a long break?

Before writing in November, I studied for about 8 months, working full-time. I've completed 7Sage CC, PT 31-40 for drills, and 7 PTs randomly selected from PT65-88. I've also read through LSAT Trainer last March when I started studying, and The Loophole 3 weeks before the exam.

It honestly feels like a decade ago now and I'm not sure if I should just start from the scratch (i.e. re-doing CC). My realistic goal is to hit 165-169. I'm planning to quit my job in May to focus on studying LSAT, if I get denied. And right now, I'm thinking of writing for October / November LSAT, given my personal trips & circumstances. Thank you so much in advance!

Hi everyone,

I'd like to offer free LR tutoring (a few hours a week) to reinforce and share the strategies I've learned from @RuralCactus who has been tutoring me for the past few months. I've been able to improve my average LR score from a -8 to a -4. I'd love to work with someone who is in the low-mid 160s, scoring -6 to -8 in LR sections. I feel I will be able to help these people the most as I recently broke out of that plateau and I'm looking to hone in on executing my strategies to consistently score -2 or above. I'm based in Pacific Time Zone but I can be flexible. Please PM me if you are interested. Thanks!