Hopefully I was able to clarify it more.

Actually, after reading my response, I don't think I did a good job explaining. I don't wish for you to get the wrong idea.

What is the "Main Purpose"

First, what did you think before you read it, and what do you think after you read it. What did the passage or section convince or persuade you in?

So you ask yourself the "what" question.

Now that your opinions changed.

You ask yourself the "why" question. Why was it important for the author to change your opinion in this way. How does it help his argument or point of view?

So - I guess you can apply these steps and you should arrive at the right answer.

Step 1: Read the section in question

Step 2: What did you think before you read it, what did you think after you read it

Step 3: How does this help the author's argument

Step 4: Why is it important for the author to make you think this way

Think more about arguments: main purpose is more like finding out why a premise was stated and how the premise proves a conclusion.

Because when you only think about why, without thinking about how it interacts with the passage as a whole, you can fall into traps the LSAT sets. It's when you see how everything works together, you can more clearly answer "Main Purpose".

So what about "Main Point"?

Main Point asks for what the passage is about. It's a broad overview. It can be about just facts, a topic, or it could convey the author's intent or beliefs.

So in the context of arguments: main point is more like finding the conclusion.

Say, there is someone who wants to convince you to investment a million dollars.

Invest a million dollar in my company. You should do it because I have a product that I believe will help humanity. It's a brand new technology that can solve many of the world's problems. There is a large moat preventing competitors from entering the market. Therefore you should investment in my company.

So what's the main point?

Well the main point would be to invest a million dollars in my company.

What's the main purpose of: There is a large moat preventing competitors from entering the market.

Step 1: read it

Step 2: I did not want to invest, now I want to invest

Step 3: It provided support for me to invest in the company

Step 4: The author needs me to believe this to convince me to invest.

Therefore, the main purpose of that sentence was to act as support to convince me.

15 minutes could save you 15 percent or more on car insurance

Strengtheners make the premise more relevant to the argument's conclusion. (Vice versa for weakening).

This car helps the environment. It uses new battery technology.

Strengthen: The new battery technology reduce green house gas emissions.

You see, under the original premise / conclusion, we don't know WHY or HOW the new battery technology supports the conclusion that the car helps the environment. Every car has a car battery. However, when we provide the strengthening answer choice, we now know exactly why, it reduces green house gas emissions.

Must be true works differently.

We are currently experiencing the 6th mass extinction event. Scientists have discovered that the number and variety of animals on our planet is decreasing at an alarming rate. The rate of decline is faster than at any other time on Earth.

Must be true: Animals are dying at a faster rate than what is considered normal.

For a must be true, you ask yourself based solely on the stimulus, what must be the case. It must be true that animals are dying in order for the number and variety of animals to decrease (if animals are not dying i.e. they live forever, then they would not be declining in numbers). It must also be true that they are dying at a faster rate because the rate of decline is the fastest it's ever been on Earth.

Most Strongly Supported.

There is scientific debate surrounding the cause of climate change. However, many scientists agree that the average temperatures around the world increased sharply only after the industrial revolution when mankind began dumping green house gas emissions into the environment.

Most Strongly Supported: Humans caused climate change.

You see, from the premise and stimulus, you can infer that humans caused climate change. It is what is most strongly supported. Is it a must be true? Not really, the stimulus states that MANY scientists agree. For it to be a must be true that Humans did indeed cause climate change, the strength would need to be stronger. It would be something along the lines of "ALL scientists agree without a doubt". Well, if ALL scientists agree without a doubt, than I guess it MUST BE TRUE that humans did cause climate change.

Good luck, hopefully that helped.

#19,

Only if those configurations are typical of chess games.

(A) is games other than chess.

Games other than chess is definitely not configurations of a typical chess game.

#help

With enough time and being able to finally analyze 15, you really have to ask yourself what the two inferences are.

In line 54, it states, "it suggests instead" - inference one.

In line 63, it states, "are more likely to be" - inference two.

The first inference attempts to explain, whilst the second inference attempts to predict.

"When" is a sufficient indicator.

When food production has reached it's maximum level, population will continue to grow at least briefly

When food production has reached it's maximum level, population will continue to grow (at least briefly)

Food Pro Reached Max -> Pop Cont. Grow

whereas B merely restates the premise ALREADY in the stimulus.

Food resources from the ocean will be fully utilized,

The stimulus already said the Planet's resources - and the ocean is part of the planet. Therefore "B" doesn't strengthen, it did not provide any additional information that was not already provided in the stimulus.

It's a nice trap though especially under timed conditions.

But for answer "B" it says specifically, "Two Distinct Populations that did not interbred" - this is different than one population living in both shallow and deeps...

dis·tinct

/dəˈstiNG(k)t/

adjective

1.

recognizably different in nature from something else of a similar type.

Interbred is known to be:

"Broadly speaking, different species are unable to interbreed and produce healthy, fertile offspring due to barriers called mechanisms of reproductive isolation."

Based off of the definitions above:

When we know that the native species were distinct in that they are recognizably different, AND that they do not interbred, we deduce they are genetically different.

This lends support to the researcher's hypothesis, as the video states it should.

Granted this assumes that they (the salmon) are so genetically different from each other that they do not breed with each other, however, this same assumption is used in answer choice "A". Answer choice "B" provides us with historical context and additional premise in the "two distinct populations".

Another question, so what if sockeye's interbred with the native salmon? Answer choice "A" needs the assumption that the native salmon originally only occupied the shallow, or the deep exclusively. And, even if they did not interbred with the native salmon so what? The sockeyes could have just been genetically different from the native salmon to begin with, it doesn't explain why the sockeyes split into two groups. And furthermore, just because the sockeyes do not interbred with the native salmon does not explain the sockeye's adaption to distinct habitats like answer choice "B" does.

#help

Conclusion is that

Dinosaurs are closely related to birds based solely off of a T-rex soft tissue.

Answer choice "D" makes sense because:

Yes, T-rex is more related to chickens than other dinosaurs means that her conclusion that all dinosaurs are closely related is less supported. It could be just the T-rex that is closely related, and not other dinosaurs.

No, T-rex is not more related to chickens. Then this would mean that other dinosaurs are equal to, or more related to chickens than T-rex. This would support her notion that Dinosaurs then, are closely related to Chickens.

#help

Couldn't D be, confusing

Pineal Gland -cause-> Insomniac

there are several issues here.

It could be that not sleeping causes a deterioration with the pineal gland.

It could be, something else causing both insomnia and pineal gland problems.

How do you know when it says effect of a phenomenon that it is talking about age, and not insomnia?

#help

Isn't knowing what the Interior Ministry is doing part of a Senator's job?

When you know they trick you,

and when they know that you know that they trick you.

So they trick you by not tricking you because they know that you know.

Result?

They trick you.

Totally thought "nonsmokers" meant the second group who went on to quit.

Thought it meant, those people who quit from the aerobic exercise group, did not see weight gain even after they stopped exercise...

Confused.

Stimulus Simplified:

Take into account the bad history of disciplines.

Example Chemistry. Its amazing landmark results were from Alchemists.

Here, its example of Chemistry contradicts the principle.

It's trying to use the example of Chemistry to exemplify the bad history of the discipline, however, the bad history it's trying to show was actually good. Because of its history in alchemy, Chemistry had landmark results.

Therefore, doesn't the example contradict the principle it originally set out to prove?

#help (Added by Admin)

how do you tell your brain to stop making assumptions and inferences?

I need to learn to read answer choices at face value.

#help

I am still confused about answer choice (A).

The stimulus states:

Most people oppose such tariffs.

Politicians would be more likely to be reelected if they vote against the tariffs.

Answer choice (A) states:

Supporters of tariffs on particular products are not significantly more likely than opponents to base their vote on a politician on the politician's stand on this issue.

So in our imaginary country of 100 people, 51 oppose the tariff, 49 support the tariffs.

Suppose supporters are NOT significantly more likely than opponents to vote based on tariffs.

Then you would have at least 51 people vote for politicians that vote against tariffs. The people that support tariffs can choose to vote for or against the politician because the stimulus only said that most people are against it. This interpretation doesn't contradict the stimulus.

Suppose supporters ARE significantly more likely than opponents to vote based on tariffs.

We are talking about the subset of the population, namely the supporters, and they are voting in support of the tariffs.

You would still have only 49 people voting in support of the tariffs versus 51 voting against. You cannot suddenly have 60 people vote for tariffs and wreck the conclusion, because that contradicts the stimulus. Or are we allowed to simply just ignore and disregard the stimulus that says most people oppose it?

My point is that the stimulus specifically said that more people are against the tariffs. So regardless of answer choice (A), and how the supporters of tariffs will or will not vote - it doesn't change the outcome and thus it is not a necessary assumption.

#Help

When you understand the flaws in the stimulus - but don't understand the answer choices.

After reviewing, I thought of it as in supply and demand.

Labor is part of supply whereas fashion is part of demand.

If a product is labor-intensive, it sets a limit on the supply of said product.

If something is fashionable, it is in high demand.

Answer choice (A) says in simpler terms:

Demand is more important than supply.

Whereas answer choice (E) says

Demand is an important factor.

The more I practice, the lower my scores... I'm at a lost for words.

#help

Not sure how he is using "will" as an indicator.

Why complain about something if one doesn't even want to fix it?...

Doctors should discuss activities that can significantly reduce chronic back pain.

Yoga = Stretching with Therapist.

Doctors should talk about yoga.

(E) Doctors discuss with patients Stretching with Therapist.

Because doctors are discussing Stretching, you know from the premise that it can significantly reduce chronic back pain. Because it is equal to Yoga, you also know that Yoga therefore can significantly lower chronic back pain. Why does the stimulus say doctors SHOULD talk about yoga? Because doctors are ALREADY talking about stretching.

If we negate it.

Doctors are not discussing stretching. Then because of the premise, you know that it is not an activity that significantly reduces back pain. Because yoga = stretching, it then would also mean yoga does not significantly reduce back pain.

For answer choice (B)

Stretching classes significantly lower chronic back pain does not adequately explain why in the conclusion the doctor should talk about Yoga. The doctor could just talk about stretching instead. Or perhaps because the doctor is already talking about Stretching, thus, the doctor should also talk about Yoga - which brings us back to answer choice (E)

#Help

Sighs... morally neutral...

Brain somehow turned this into an MBT question...

Was it too much of an assumption, that the Doctor telling Judy not to reveal a secret, that they had an agreement?

Under most normal circumstances, it would be implied... no?

#help (Added by Admin)