(B)

- Muscle tissue =/= Spleen

- Therefore this is introducing an alternative explanation (!)

- Thereby diluting the bridge between premise and conclusion

Q27

Weaken

—

(C) Somewhere else, something else happened:

This may feel like it's opening up an alternative possibility that might weaken the argument, but it does not (do this well), because the 'set' on which this argument is based on could be entirely different to this 'new set', and therefore could have entirely different circumstances.

(In order to dilute the bridge between evidence and conclusion, you have to actually pour water in to the jar (argument) in question. Not a new different jar.)

(E) Other hypotheses exist:

Yes. This dilutes the bridge between evidence and conclusion. The focus/relationship bridging between evidence and conclusion becomes not as strong.

Assumption-anticipation = Absolutely required to fill the gap:

At least one person fits the bill. This person was in fact inaccurate.

—

(B) Almost everyone...:

Does not need to be almost everyone.

(E) At least some people wished to be perceived as unwilling to watch television news programs:

I thought this was direct reiteration of the conclusion. However, this needs to be true in order for the argument to work. If we say NO person wished to be perceived as unwilling to watch the news, then the argument breaks down.

(A) Everyone...:

Does not need to be everyone.

(C) At least some of the people who responded to polls in the editorialist's country did not believe that in their responses they were portraying themselves as they actually were:

This is not required. Stim says "whether or not they are aware of it." Argument is fine for them to believe or not believe.

(D) None of the people...:

Does not need to be none of the people.

Flaw-anticipate:

Just because only one-third pass the test,

it does not mean that the new curriculum has lowered the quality of instruction.

—

(C) concludes that something has diminished in quality (instruction) from evidence (test results) indicating that it is of below-average quality (low-pass-rate):

Initially I thought that low-pass-rates do not necessarily mean low quality — what if the test was really difficult to pass? This is why they told us that this rate was 'below the national average'. So it's objectively bad.

So the operative word here is "diminished". In order for something to be "diminished" it needs to have a starting point and an end point. We only got the end point, i.e. results from last year. We never heard where the pass rate started from several years ago. For all we know, it might have even been positive progress!

—

(A) treats a phenom (low-pass-rate) as an effect of an observed changed (new curriculum) in the face of evidence (???) indicating that it may be the cause of that change (new curriculum):

Meaning that the reason why they introduced a new curriculum is because they had low-pass-rates. But we don't know this. They never told us what the pass-rate was like several years ago.

[A + B + C] → [D] → [A]

—

If they give you a convoluted sufficiency, don't get hung up on it—it's still a suff/nec relationship. The lawgic stays the same: If you fail the sufficiency, nothing happens!

Note to self: Make sure you clearly identify which side of the argument each speaker is on, but also to what degree: Do either strongly agree? Mildly agree? Mildly disagree? Strongly disagree? Realizing for a lot of these questions, strength is also very important.

Note to self: Going back to the passage to check details is not a waste of time. It actually reduces time spent on impasse.

Stim

P: Avg price for a new car has steadily increased in relation to avg indi income.

C: Indi buying cars today spend on avg larger amount relative to their income.

—

Weaken-anticipation

I had no idea. It sounded pretty valid to me, almost a re-phrase?

—

Difficulty/confusion

The word "amount", on its own, is numeric, whereas "relative" is proportional.

—

Weaken

(A) More than one wage earner:

Felt icky but chose this after POE — obviously I shouldn't have. The fact that there are more wage earners in the family does not influence the argument. The 'set' we're dealing with is individuals, not families. The argument makes this clear on both sentences.

(C) Adjusted for inflation, individual income has significantly declined:

I think this actually strengthens? If individual incomes decreased then proportionally the car price takes up more of their income.

(E) Sales to individuals make up a smaller proportion of all new-car sales than they did 25 years ago:

I didn't think too much of this, which was wrong of me. This is introducing a 'super-set' which shifts the entire argument. Reading this I should've went back to the Stim and realize that the correlation stated in the premise is a 'loose' correlation. It's not saying that the individuals actually purchased those new cars, it's just saying that [new car prices] & [individual incomes] went up during the last 25 years.

Got it right under timed PT, and wrong on BR. What's confusing is that although it's appealing to an authority, it's not necessarily committing a flaw. Of course, the Q Stem does not ask us to ID the flaw either.

When they are referencing violence with "they" in the last sentence, it's not clear to me whether it's violence under "certain situations" or all violence in general. I thought (E) was too broad.

I feel this is a poor question. In any case, make sure you do not extrude the meaning of words used in ACs – they are quite literal. I fudged "incomplete recollections" to be his statement about the report.

When the flaw is Correlation/Causation, it can be weakened either by raising the possibility that the causal flow is flipped, or by raising an alternative influence.

It cannot, however, be weakened by comparing the Correlation to another Correlation.

Misread (C). The rep is NOT making the distinction which is the flaw.

Stim

P: Any [R knowledge] → [What press agent said]

P: [Press agent told every R everything] → [No R knows more than other R] → [No R can scoop]

Defining-P: [Press agent told every R everything]

MC: [Some R can scoop]

—

Stim simplified

P: [PA-ToldEveryREverything] → [R-AllEqual] → [Scoop]

P: [PA-ToldEveryREverything]

C: [Scoop]

—

"Flawed because arg fails to recognize the following is consistent with the arg"

(E) No R knows any more about the accident than any other R

(E-reworded) If [R-AllEqual] → Then [Scoop]

—

I think the difficulty stem from the fact that what (E) is really saying is "IT COULD BE THE CASE THAT...[No R knows any more about the accident than any other R]." It's not that it is, but that it could be the case. The convoluted question stem kind of makes this bit ambiguous.

"Dismiss" ≠ "Ignore"

Counterintuitive:

"White-footed mice" sound like they're the ticks whereas "deer ticks" sound like they're the host. You see, deers are bigger than mice, but ticks are smaller than mice. The writers must have had so much fun designing this question.

The 122–180 spread on Q14

P: Vast majority is X

P: Implicitly, some X

C: Does not mean you have Y solely based on some X

Stim

C: Oral trads better than written trads

P: Speech improves memory & literature based ppl are sluggish

P: Writing has no limits; writer & reader both become confused

P Oral trads are dependent on memory → redundancy is eradicated

—

PSA anticipation

If redundancy is eradicated then it's better?

—

(A) Accuracy in comms breeds mental self-reliance:

Being generous, even if we say "mental self-reliance" is "improved memory", this still does not slot into the PSA gap. "Improved memory" does not need support.

(D) Economy of expression is better than verbosity:

Yes, similar to pre-phrase.

(E) Ideas that cannot be discussed clearly should not be discussed at all:

Too strong.

After reading the Stim, JY's voice in your head should go, "But why? Why should that be true?"

Stim

- PB had growth rings. Growth rings are only found in CBA.

- PB had dense blood vessels. Indicates they were WBA.

- Modern birds were thought to be descended from WBA. Still true?

—

RRE

(D) Dense blood vessels are not found in all WBA:

This only plays within the parameters of WBA. It's talking about some exceptions within WBAs. It is not talking about CBA. It needs to talk about CBA to reconcile.

(E) In some CBA, the gene that is responsible for growth rings is also responsible for dense blood vessels:

This is saying that both traits came from one place that is from the CBA realm, thereby explain how even as a CBA you could have a trait that is common among WBA.

Stim

P: Inventors do this and engineers do that.

Ctx/P: Although sometimes they are the same person.

C: Engineers deserve more credit.

—

(B) Indicates that the problem identified in the argument does not arise in every instance:

Yes, it's just saying that sometimes it doesn't happen.

(D) It concedes that a distinction on which the argument relies is unclear:

Distinction between inventors and engineers is not unclear. It's just that they sometimes might be the same person.

C: Less active when temp drops below normal.

O: Not true. Cold and warm region microbes ate at the same rate.

—

C is comparing local normal temp and local below normal temp. O is referencing a comparison between a cold place and a warm place, implying the warm place has 'normal' temp.

Stim

P: People are dissatisfied by politicians' ineffectuality.

P: Ineffectuality is simply a manifestation of politician's job.

C: If dissatisfaction is expressed → then it's because politicians are doing their job.

—

Flaw

(D) legislative compromise inevitably results in popular dissatisfaction with politicians:

I think this is wrong on two accounts:

This answer choice is saying:

[Compromise] → [Dissatisfaction]

but the conclusion is saying

[Dissatisfaction] → [Compromise]

But even without this, the stimulus is not stating the "inevitability" of things anywhere. It's merely stating the scenario of "if and when people are dissatisfied."

—

(A) ineffectuality is the only source of dissatisfaction

This answer choice is difficult to pick, because it's akin to "overlooks the possibility..." answer choices. Flaw stimuli usually overlook a lot of things, and that's okay.

However, on this one it's not. This is because the Stim said:

[Dissatisfaction] → [Compromise]

and you can understand naturally, within common sense that's permitted on LSAT, that there could be a number of reasons why dissatisfaction can occur.

Stim

Ctx: "Be you. Instead of being dissatisfied."

C: [If the goal is happy society.] → This is wrong.

P: [No pursuit + Unwilling to change] → [Happy]

—

Stim, revised

P: [Happy] → [Pursuit] or [Willing to change]

C: Goal [Happy] → Principle is NOT ["Satisfied."]

—

Anticipation

[(Pursuit) or (Willing to change)] → Principle is NOT ["Satisfied."]

—

N.A.

(A) [Willing to change] ‑probably?→ [Happy]

(B) [Satisfied] → [Pursuit]

This is a (sort of) contrapositive of the anticipated statement.

—

In plain language

P: If you're not pursuing excellence, or unwilling to undergo personal change, then you can't be happy.

C: If you want to be happy, don't be satisfied.

BOTH required (I think)

Pursuing excellence → Dissatisfied

Willing to undergo personal change → Dissatisfied