Am having trouble with this question - could someone let me know if I'm thinking about the stimulus (and ACs) correctly?

Stim:

P1: When old trees die, the decomposition releases their stored CO2

P2: Harvesting old trees makes more room for young trees (who can absorb more CO2 than old trees)

C: Harvesting old trees for manufacturing things would reduce CO2 (and therefore we'd avoid the whole decomposing issue?)

My thoughts: Okay, that seems like it makes relative sense. There's an assumption there that the CO2 release by decomposed old trees would be offset by the young trees that can absorb more CO2.

ACs:

A - Animal species? Irrelevant.

B - At first I immediately eliminated this AC because it just didn't seem to make any sense. After more reading, it seems like okay, if the harvested old trees were manufactured into products that would decompose super quickly, we could still run into the CO2 decomposition issue.

C - This was the AC I originally picked, thinking that since a young tree contains 10 CO2 vs an old tree that contains 40 CO2, then clearly the young tree can't offset the decomposition of an old tree. But I think this AC is actually irrelevant because of course a young tree at a snapshot would contain less CO2 than an old tree would - but this seems to attack P2?

D - Irrelevant, dont need to know where most of the CO2 in a forest comes from.

E - I feel like this AC is trying to get us to attack P2 in a similar way C is, but we'd have to also assume that size of trees has some sort of correlation with CO2 absorption.

#help

Originally got this question wrong (picked E), but I think I understand why C is right - could someone confirm my thinking?

Stim:

P: Infant death rates have declined historically

C: But that doesn't necessarily mean the babies currently born are actually healthier now.

Hm, why is that? Is it that they are more likely to live but are still really weak when they're born?

ACs:

A - We're not focused on the rates for infant mortality. The stim already addresses some localities where the rates have increased.

B - This explains why 51%+ of the infants who are already part of that mortality rate died, but doesn't explain why the infants who survived aren't necessarily healthier.

C - Originally I eliminated this AC because I misunderstood the stimulus when it came to "infant mortality" and what actually meant to be part of that rate. But if the US is developing awesome tech that is able to keep babies alive, then that explains why babies are dying are lower rates - we're able to save them better, but nothing's really changed in their unhealthy state during birth.

D - Again, not focused on infant mortality rates

E - Originally picked this one because C just didn't click for me, so I tried to justify that E introduced some sort of alternative cause as to why they're not as healthy. But this has one huge issue: The stim is talking about babies at BIRTH and this AC is talking about babies who grow into toddlers, young kids, etc.

#help

I had originally chosen AC C because I didn't carefully read the "that is not based on coconut oil" portion, so now I can see how D is correct.

However, if C had said "Nondairy coffee lighteners made with coconut oil..." - would that have made it a strengthening AC? It seemed like the stimulus was trying to allude to the fact that maybe fat has a stronger impact on cholesterol levels than cholesterol themselves.

#help

Really struggled with this question in terms of understanding the QS and choosing between A and D (specifically, why A isn't right). Could someone correct my understanding?

Stim:

profit --> build more rooms or improve existing

/build more rooms

/profit

My thinking: So if there's no ability to increase profits, then hotel owners are either unable to build more rooms (which stim states) and/or unable to improve existing rooms

This question is a fill in the blank, so we're looking for a most strongly supported AC.

ACs:

A: Struggled a lot with this AC - it almost seemed like a necessary assumption because sure, even if hotel owners can't build more rooms, what if their rooms are at 10% occupancy right now? They'd be able to increase profits if they upped the occupancy rate to 100%.

B: Wrong. How would we know if they are maxed out when it comes to attractive location? Stim doesn't tell us this

C: Wrong. Cost of labor? came from left field

D: Initially chose this answer and then went back to A. My thinking here originally was: Alright, so hotel owners can't build more rooms, but they have another lever. Could they do some renovations and charge the rooms higher so they can make a profit? But, this AC shows that the hotels are already maxed out when it comes to improvement so they're really just...stuck.

(but then I came back again to this question and thought, well, what if the rooms aren't actually maxed out so then I kept bouncing back and forth between A and D) :(

E: Wrong. How do we know this/what would this even do to drive towards the fact that profits aren't increasing?

#help

Can someone please explain why A is correct? Here was my initial breakdown/reasoning for why I thought E was the right point of issue:

Stim: There were some footprints found.

Dr. T: These are obviously hominid footprints because they have some human characteristics.

Dr. R: No Dr. T, these are not obviously hominid footprints because if you're right, then these hominids would've walked in a really weird way that's unlikely

ACs:

A: Originally got rid of A because it seemed like they both acknowledged the significance of the evidence, just that they interpreted the "squarish heel and a big toe etc" evidence differently in terms of what it meant

B: Neither of them really touch on this - seems like they both agree this set of footprints is at least somewhat distinguishable

C: Gait? Isn't mentioned by either

D: Dr. R isn't saying that this isn't enough evidence to support T's conclusion, she's saying that the evidence doesn't support the conclusion

E: R mentions how weird it would be if the hominids walked "in an unexpected cross-stepping manner, by placing the left foot to the right of the right foot," which I assumed was just walking upright. Hence why I chose E

#help

Can someone validate my reasoning for why A is right and E is wrong (I had originally picked E):

Stim:

The new device can just cancel out the noise that the vacuum makes, so because of this, this new device can operate more efficiently/use less electricity than the old-school silencers. Why?

A:

Historically, there's been a tradeoff between silencing noise and efficiency, so for the old-school silencers, having to design that requires using comparatively more energy.

E:

This only refers to silencers in general and how they make cleaners less efficient, so we don't actually know what the difference is between these new silencer devices vs the old-school silencers.

#help

I originally picked C and didn't pick D - can someone confirm my rationale for why C is wrong and D is right?

C - Mentions that "very low" blood sugar levels could cancel out the high cholesterol levels, but the residents have normal blood sugar levels, so this is super irrelevant. Seems like LSAT is banking on fast and undetailed reading

D - If the residents have a genetic predisposition against vascular blockage, then that might explain why even with high cholesterol levels, they may have a counteracting force against the cholesterol levels

#help

I'm having trouble with these type of logical translation and mapping questions - could someone map out the conditional logic of the stimulus and how the AC fits as the NA?

#help

Could someone map out the lawgic on this problem? I could only make sense of the question from an intuitive process and not the diagramming. #help

I know this is a very basic necessary/sufficient question but could someone validate the way I diagramed the logic?

Stim:

Professor: both O parents --> only O child

Student: not [both O parents --> only O child], but the student switched the professor's statement around to mean [only O child --> both O parents]. So given his logic, /both O parents --> /only O child (since he's Type B).

ACs:

A) only O child --> both O parents

B) both O parents --> /type B child

C) both B parents --> only O children

D) irrelevant

E) both B parents --> type B children

#help

Had originally picked C and read this thread that was very helpful in visualizing the stimulus: https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/7343.

However, I'm still having trouble with AC B and C.

For B, I had originally read it as the concentration of O18 INCREASED (so if it was at 90L after the evaporation, then in the ice age, it was actually at 150L), rather than the concentration of O18 in the ice age ocean is just higher than that of the interglacial period.

Could someone explain why C is wrong? It seems to align with the stimulus?

#help

I've browsed through some discussion forums on this passage, but wanted to see if my overall conditional logic thinking was correct. #help

Stim: Fear of retaliation --> deterrence

A) deterrence --> fear of retaliation (switches the logic)

B ) /fear --> deterrence (which also just makes no common sense)

C) deterrence --> fear of retaliation

D) I couldn't figure out a rough logic translation but the overall thought process tracked with that in the stimulus

E) deterrence --> need the best retaliation (which is just irrelevant)

I've been drilling MSS questions, and this one had me hung up for a while. I initially chose C, but then chose D during BR - would appreciate it if someone could validate my thought process in how I got to the right answer (mostly through POE). #help

Stimulus: For the same crime, it's unfair how famous vs unknown criminals are sentenced, even though the principle of equality says there shouldn't be a discrepancy in how people are sentenced due to fame, etc. (For a while, the "however" really threw me off because I thought for some reason that the principle of equality was used to counter the uneven sentences in a resentencing/retributive manner...I was very confused lol)

A) "only a few": we don't know this. Technically it could be 99% of trials that are for unknown defendants so it's actually a majority

B) "The number should equal" - proportionally this doesn't make sense, since there's maybe like 1 famous criminal per 1000 unknown defendants

C) "Can properly be overridden by other principles" What principles are we talking about?

D) Yes - basically what the author is saying. This sentencing is unfair and a breach of the equality principle

E) We don't know if it does or doesn't allow for leniency

Hi everyone,

I'm taking the Oct LSAT (ahh!!) and hoping to brush up on some LG games that focus on de Morgan's rules. Does anyone have a list of ones that I can practice? Don't believe there's a filter for it in the Drills. Thanks in advance for the help!

#help

I originally picked C but think I get why C is right - can someone validate my thinking?

Stim:

-Context basically (even though it came from treasure hunter): maritime law says that when people risk their lives to save a ship in peril, they can keep whatever they want.

-Treasure hunter: For ships that have basically been wrecked for a long time, treasure hunters get to keep cargo since they risk their lives to save the ships from oblivion

-Archaeologist: No, you don't get to keep cargo since these shipwrecks are stable. They're not in danger from anything (aka not in peril) - the only annoying thing they have to deal with are greedy treasure hunters.

ACs:

C - Originally I thought that the archaeologist was arguing that the hunters weren't actually being heroic or risking their lives (the "shipwrecks have stabilized over the centuries they have lain underwater" somehow made me think that she was arguing that the waters around the ship were still aka hunters were not risking their lives.) But I guess my confusion was it seemed that she was arguing that the ship wasn't in peril and therefore the hunters weren't even risking their lives?

The main "devils advocate" to that statement would be that maybe the hunters ARE risking their lives but the they're not saving the ship from oblivion.

D - Archaeologist seems to agree with this statement that the maritime law can apply here. She's just saying that the ship is literally not in disarray at all and have nothing to save.

B - Speaks to the fact that "the only danger [the ships] are in" is from "greedy treasure hunters."

#help

Hi everyone, I've been rolling around in this question for a very long time and still have some fundamental questions so would be great if someone can confirm my thinking/help answer those questions. Thanks in advance!

Stimulus breakdown:

P: The robots that are being designed are the ones that can be maintained with the least expensive, least skilled human labor possible

C: So robots won't eliminate demeaning work, they're just gonna basically substitute one "demeaning job" for another

In more human terms, the argument is saying that if there are 100 people assembling car parts in a factory (assuming that we call that a demeaning job), then the addition of robots will basically take those 100 jobs and turn it into 100 jobs of monitoring the robots (which they also assume is a demeaning job).

My question: It seems like this question makes us assume that "hazardous and demeaning work" is the same as "least expensive, least skilled human labor." Is this a flaw or is this something we could be allowed to assume?

Answer Choices:

A) Using 2-step test, this does happen in that he ignores that some jobs might be eliminated if the factories don't use robots. But this is not the flaw because even if he did consider that, it doesn't hit on the conclusion that robots are really just substituting and not reducing the net # of demeaning jobs

B) Not descriptively accurate, so fails step 1

C) Descriptively accurate - he doesn't specify what the engineers think but fails step 2 because that's not an issue. Even if he hits on the sentiments of the engineer, it doesn't weaken his argument that the robots are just subbing demeaning jobs and not even decreasing the net #

D) Not descriptively accurate - there's not any fear that's happening here

E) Descriptively accurate and if he did acknowledge that it's possible that 1 robot could replace the 100 shitty jobs in the care factory with just 1, then his conclusion that "robots will not eliminate demeaning work" no longer holds.

My question here is though, is it okay that a weakening answer basically completely destroys the argument? I know we can't attack the premise but not sure where that stands for the conclusion/broader argument.

#help

Admin Note: Edited the title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of question"

Hi - trying to look through previous discussions / on the LSAT website but couldn't find a clear answer. I have blank paper but it's yellow. Is that okay, or does the blank paper have to be white? Thanks in advance!

Having a hard time understanding this question and how AC D bridges the assumed gap between the premise and conclusion. #help

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"

Having a bit of trouble understanding why A is correct (I originally chose C). Could someone clarify? Thank you!

Stim:

Ctx: Foundation didn't want their $ to be used for weapons research so uni said none of their $ would be used for the research

P: None of foundation's $ would benefit weapons research

C: Foundation rescinded threat

ACs:

C - I didn't love this AC, but chose it because none of the others initially seemed correct to me. Descriptively, it is accurate in that the foundation overlooked this possibility that the uni was lying, but I mean it's a short argument, I'm sure they could've overlooked several things.

I wonder if this C almost attacks the premise in a way - Like, okay sure what if the uni was lying? Then the foundation's grant money would DIRECTLY benefit weapons research. Is this the right way of thinking about it?

A - I googled around and saw some explanations for why A was correct, but my struggle is that the crux of why this AC is correct is that it hinges on the nuance of direct vs indirect benefit. I didn't even think about indirect benefit until reading explanations for this AC, but wondering if that's a common theme of "direct" vs "indirect" when it comes to certain flaw questions?

#help

Hi folks! I just took the March LSAT and got a 163, and I'm planning on taking the LSAT again in June (aiming for 170). I definitely felt like my brain wasn't working during the first 10minutes of the test due to anxiety and also realized how weak my foundation is in LR and LG.

I'm interested in a tutor for maybe biweekly tutoring - specifically in helping me create a focused study schedule leading up to June and targeting my specific weak areas across LR and LG (I think I'm relatively solid on RC). I also work full-time so ideally tutoring would happen on weekday nights or weekend afternoons.

Please reach out if you're available - thank you!