@Mary very helpful, thank you!

@new_cheese very helpful, thank you! You are right, I did chose B at first then chose D during blind review. Reviewing this question deeply helped :)

@MichaelWright Hi! I learned getting a some inference from two all statements combined is valid. according to the source you provided, two most statements combined can also yield a some inference… to confirm, all+all and most+most yields some, which is valid? TY

I just realized I won thank you so much! AHHH 🥳🙌

@PrateekDevulpally thank you, very helpful! I have a reminder to do to do lists or write things down like you said while at work to get paid to do it, but I usually ignore it. I will stop ignoring it because I can’t keep hurting myself like this.

Am I wrong or A does have a flaw(mistaken negation) it’s simply not the same flaw as the stimulus?

@BrynnaM turning on notifications to hear OP’s answers for real

@PhoebeHopp got it thank you Phoebe! Similar to LR, some ACs might be too Strong to be supported etc

@calliekoskovich thank you!

@NoNamed92 thank you!

@Kevin_Lin very helpful, thank you! I’ll start using the if not trick, it’s much more straightforward

@lagata just realized explanation for AC C is below the explanation for ac B and if someone isn’t paying attention, it can confuse them

FYI 7sage answer choice C doesn’t have an explanation (just putting it on the radar not pressed)

Through POE I got this question right but can someone explain why AC C weakens…just because insiders think the play is unexciting doesn’t mean the audiences will agree with the insiders… why is this a reasonable jump or assumption according to the lsat?

I understand AC D was the better /correct AC bc we don’t know enough information about Ziegler’s other works to determine whether or not this play will be a success… for example if we knew that his other works werent successful then maybe it would weaken but because we simply don’t know enough about his other works than this answer choice has no effect on the argument.

Still though answer choice C, why is it reasonable to assume or make that jump I stated above?

Why I think some ACs are wrong:

AC A— the argument literally says irrelevant of the rebellious art being beautiful, it’s not covered by euro theory… so clearly beauty of the rebels art isn’t central to the argument. The beauty of the old euro art isn’t mentioned in the argument, so it must also not be a central assumption to the argument.

AC B explanation is that it literally contradicts the stimulus because the stimulus says the rebels self consciously defied the earlier notions of European theory… so they literally were guided by their knowledge of early euro theory , and AC B says they weren’t guided, thus contradicting the stimulus, so it can’t be descriptively accurate and thus cannot be a flaw in the argument

I’m gonna sound like one of the instructors saying this(for the sake of peace I’m not saying who) but for AC C— please tell me you can see why it’s BS, clear out of scope of the argument

AC D— the stimulus says euro theory encompasses all art until 1960s … the stimulus never says ONLY the 1960s weren’t covered by euro theory… what this means is afterwards of 1960s… 1970s, 1980s, 1990s these artists works couldn’t be covered by euro theory. clearly, the argument assumes contrary to ac D— art besides from the 1960s isn’t covered by euro theory

AC E— is correct because notice the shift in language in the stimulus from euro aesthetic theory premises to a conclusion that is about “no aesthetic theory is complete” which translate to the conclusion being about all aesthetic theory … why would premises about one aesthetic theory support a conclusion about all aesthetic theories!?? AC E captures this by saying essentially does euro aesthetic theory cover all aesthetic theories??!!

@JessOk yes good point! I use music when on the train bc there’s a lot going on

@SerinJ thank you! Yes good point, sometimes music is a good way to stay motivated when I feel like I’m starting to crack a bit from the constant grind

@Bobby68 thank u! Will check it out when I can

@MichaelWright thanks Mikey! 🙏🏼

The goal of this comment is to ensure I am understanding correctly why the correct answer is correct by correctly identifying what the flaw is here.

For me, the argument says “an example of knowing history is reading history books)

= RH(reading history)—> KH (and ofc we know KH—>II)

I structurally thought of the argument this way:

KH(know history)—> II (impress intellectuals)

then we are told a way to trigger KH is to read the history books(but ofc, since reading books is only AN EXAMPLE, there are other ways to trigger KH)

The next premise says /RH—>/KH (here is the mistaken negation)

Then can’t II is conclusion (again mistaken negation)

what the conclusion should have said is:

/II—> /KH

What the author assumes is that the negation of this can’t happen(right?):

=

S—>/N

Aka the sufficiency can happened without that necessary condition in this case one can impress intellectuals despite not being able to read history books

=

II—> another N

And the correct answer choices alludes to this by saying there are other necessary conditions for impressing intellectuals

Please a tutor confirm if this is correct thinking for this question (sometimes my ask a tutor button doesn’t work)