This is such great advice. I would recommend listening to (and reading) 19th century novels. Many classic 19th century authors like Dickens and Dostoevsky write in the kind of way that encourages your eyes to glaze over from information overload. You can get to the end of the page (or 5 minutes of listening) and ask yourself "What did I just read?" The sentence structures employed in the 19th century can be long and complex which makes them perfect for RC training. Listening to the stories on my commute gives me great PAY ATTENTION training. Plus reading/listening to classic novels gives my mind a break from thinking about the LSAT and my job. I am partial to Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov. It is an incredible story and great reading training.

This was rushed through on this explanation but I am still struggling to see why A is not a necessary assumption. The way I am seeing it is if a person starts working at 18 and works for 40 years they will be 58 years old. The second premise says anyone who has worked 40 years should not deprive others of opportunities, so a 58 year old could fit this category. Why don't we have to assume 40 year workers are 65 for that second premise to stand? Or am I approaching this question type in the wrong way?

#help (Added by Admin)

Bullshit. This is the epitome of the new wave of looser LR questions. Thanks for the explanation JY.

#help

Trying to understand the difference between this and an example:

Premise 1. Many wizards can perform transfiguration

Premise 2. All people who can perform transfiguration have orange hair

Conclusion. Many wizards have orange hair.

Is Premise 1 evidence for a statement (Premise 2) that is used to support the argument's conclusion? Or do they both support the conclusion directly, but have to be taken together to make sense of the conclusion?

In the passage:

Premise 1. Many local businesses depend on our region's natural beauty

Premise 2. Heavy industrial activity would force most local businesses to close

Conclusion. We can expect the number of jobs in the region to decrease overall if heavy industrial activity is permitted

Confused.

With these fill in the blank questions is it best to look for the "BEST" answer choice and not necessarily the logically valid one? I eliminated the correct answer choice here because there is nothing in the stimulus indicating that insurgent parties are guaranteed to overthrow dominant parties if disagreement persists, it just talks about how disagreement will still exist if they win. Regime change is not necessitated by the existence of disagreements so addressing disagreements is not necessary to stay in power (answer B). I ended up choosing C because I didn't know what promulgate meant so I guessed it meant "instill acceptance" which logically ties the argument together.

#help (Added by Admin)