B was the best answer with POE, but I don't see the time distinction. Can anyone explain that to me?

The stimulus stays, "Since those days, people undoubtedly tried innumerable times to domesticate each of the wild large mammal species that seemed worth domesticating." "Since those days" is up until the present, so I don't see the separation from the past in the premises to the present in the conclusion. With that premise, I see the possibility of people having tried to domesticate worthwhile wild large mammal species yesterday.

B. People who attempt to diagnose their medical conditions are likely to do themselves more harm than good unless they rely exclusively on scientifically valid information.

What throws me off about B is the rely exclusively. That level seems unnecessary to the argument. The argument doesn't seem to require that if you don't rely exclusively on scientifically valid information you have to be doing more harm than good. Couldn't there be variations such as you don't rely exclusively, but you do equal amounts of harm and good or still do more good than harm? It seems like the same issue JY described with E with the will do vs. likely to--it's too strong to be necessary.

If B said, "People who attempt to diagnose their medical conditions are likely to do themselves more harm than good unless they rely on more scientifically valid information than on quackery" I feel like it would have been just as valid, making the current B with rely exclusively not necessary.

Anyone know how to reconcile this?

The lesson says "That assumption is said to be both sufficient and necessary. But often such distinctions do exist. An assumption can be just sufficient and not necessary. Or an assumption can strengthen an argument without being necessary."

Should it have said, "Or an assumption can strengthen an argument without being sufficient or necessary."

Or maybe it should have said "Or an assumption can be just necessary and not sufficient."

Perhaps I'm missing something here but the way it's written doesn't seem to highlight the distinctions very distinctly.

E. The existence of interior designs that are superior to those produced by Baxe does not currently threaten its near monopoly in the corporate market.

I don't see how E (or any of the answer choices) is the right answer.

We know from the text that the small design companies don't threaten Baxe's near monopoly because corporate managers will only contract with large companies, but we don't know from the text that other large companies don't produce superior designs that could currently threaten Baxe's near monopoly.

The text directly indicates that there are other large interior design companies when it says "Baxe Interiors, one of the largest interior design companies in existence." It does not say anything about the quality of the other large companies' designs.

We even eliminated answer choice A because we don't know anything about their designs. A said, "There are very large design companies besides Baxe, but they produce designs that are inferior to Baxe’s." When eliminating A J.Y. wrote, "The stimulus makes no mention of the quality of other large companies’ designs in comparison to Baxe’s designs. They could be equivalent, they could be inferior, they could be superior. We don’t know."

The very assumption we are saying is too far to make in A we are turning around and saying we must make for E. In order for E to be supported by the stimulus, we have to assume that the other large corporations don't have superior designs that could currently threaten Baxe's near monopoly in the corporate market.

If the stimulus had said Baxe was the only large interior design company in the market I would think E is a perfect answer, but as it stands, none of the answers seem supported, and this question is wild to me.

I assumed that when much of their habitat was used as a weapons testing range, they naturally stayed out of that part because of the active bombing. Animals just don't hang out in places that are being bombed after they learn that is happening in a particular location. They would have continued dying during that time because they had little habitat and resources. Then, when the testing range was opened back up, and they noticed no bombs going off, the camels started to venture back out, but then they got hit by the unexploded bombs.

I didn't feel like A explained it because I thought the poachers would have still been active while the weapons range was active, just outside the range where the camels were hanging out. I thought they could have even been more effective during that time because they had a smaller area of land to hunt down camels on. A says "The weapons tests had kept wildlife poachers out of the testing range." I thought so what, the camels wouldn't have been in the testing range while it was active anyway, so the poachers were just as effective during that time if not more effective from the smaller area to cover.

Just struggling to see this one. If you don't know anything about animals and assume they were hanging out in the testing range while it was active, then A makes sense, but they just wouldn't have stayed there too long after the bombing began, so poachers staying out of there wouldn't have had an impact.

Kevin rocks RC! Thank you for being so thorough in your explanations!

P1 - /Health → /Happiness (Contra: Happiness → Health)

NEED BRIDGE

-------------------------

Con: Acquire Money → Health (English: If you acquire money you better have health.)

A. Acquire Money → Happiness

P1 and A. together = Acquire Money → Happiness → Health

Bridge Obtained.

I get how A helps fill in the gap between the premise and the conclusion, but isn't there still a gap because we don't know conclusively that Ms. Sandstrom could have reasonably expected the column would lead people to damage the Mendels farm? We know the Mendels claim she could have reasonably expected it, but is that enough to say she could have? With the bar being logical validity as an SA question, that's really hanging me up. Perhaps it is ok because it is a conditional conclusion?

Here's why C is wrong, and BOY did it get me... C says "Before the invention of the homing beacon, automobile thieves who stole cars containing anti-theft devices were rarely apprehended." And that's all it says.

It doesn't say anything about how much apprehension is going on after the invention of the homing beacon. It could still be that people are rarely apprehended--even less apprehended--we don't know. But god, does it bait you to think that more apprehension is going on. If you take the bait there's all sorts of reasons you could give for why more apprehension is causing less car thefts. Maybe it is having a deterrence affect like scaring others from stealing cars, or maybe it's like E where most of the car thefts are committed by a few people and more apprehension means they caught some of them.

When you step back and realize C says nothing except in the past they rarely apprehended people and nothing about the amount of apprehension since the electronic homing beacon, you realize C doesn't give you anything for why the thefts have dropped.

With E you don't even need a increase in apprehensions for it to explain the drop in thefts. Apprehensions could still be really rare even after the invention of the homing beacon. Perhaps before, the police only once in a blue moon caught an inexperienced car thief because the thief was incredibly sloppy and fell right into the hands of the cops. Since the homing beacon, the police still rarely catch car thieves, except now with a major assist from the the beacon, they catch an experienced thief that as E says is one of the ones committing a majority of the car thefts.

I'm sure someone in this comment section has said this, but putting it back at the top for now. Hope this helps.

Mapping it out the way it is done in the explanation and then choosing D goes against the fundamentals of logic.

Popularity of music scale the result of social conditioning → diverse mixture of dia. and non-dia scales in world music

NOT diverse mixture of dia. and non-dia scales in world music → Popularity of music scale NOT the result of social conditioning

Not the result of social conditioning is pretty clear. I don't think it matters if it's the result of social conditioning and innate dispositions together - the formal logic says the popularity of a music scale is not the result of social conditioning in any way.

If you abstract it you can see this even more clearly.

Premises:

A → B (contra: /B → /A)

/B

It would be a flaw to conclude A and C. A just can't be a part of it. When there is not a B, there cannot be an A.

It cannot be mapped out this way--the way JY did in his explanation--and D still be the correct answer. I think the problem is JY tried to make the stimulus fit formal logic when it doesn't. The subtly of the wording makes it not a pure conditional. The we would expect is the problem.

A more accurate summary of what the stimulus is saying would be this:

If the popularity of a music scale is the result of social conditioning then we would expect a diverse mixture of dia and non-dia music scales in world music. But there isn't a diverse mixture of dia and non-dia music scales in world music (dia dominates), so we wouldn't expect the popularity of a music scale to be the result of social conditioning.

This is a lot less strong than a pure conditional.

I think the best way to view what the stimulus is saying is purely through a cause and effect lens.

If we do not expect the popularity of a music scale to be the result of social conditioning because there isn't a diverse mixture of dia and non-dia music scales in world music, then we must consider that our expectations could be wrong, there's another cause, or there's multiple causes that work together to affect a music scale's popularity. If there are multiple causes, they could include social conditioning because the stimulus is not a pure conditional. It isn't saying the hard rule /diverse → /social.

The author has gone ahead and concluded that because we don't expect the popularity of a music scale to be the result of social conditioning, that it can only be the result of one other thing, innate dispositions. They have failed to consider that music scale popularity could be caused by multiple things including social conditioning. This is the mistake that answer choice D points out.

They have failed to... (D) consider that innate dispositions and social conditioning could jointly affect the popularity of a type of music

Some people may have implicitly weakened the conditional in their minds and weren't bothered by answer choice D, but I think it is important in review to be explicit about the underlying logic so we don't begin to implicitly believe a conclusion like the one below is okay.

Premises:

A → B

/B

Conclusion: A and C

I don't see how C is required because if traditional fish don't die because they are less bold in forging for food, couldn't they still die because they are less bold in exploring new environments?

I guess attacking the support just food boldness gives the conclusion is enough to wreck the argument since the conclusion is BOTH food and exploring boldness are the reason experimental hatchery fish are more likely to survive.

I'm 30 and studying for the LSAT, and I love this thread and the people on it! It's making me think of the movie Nyad. I don't want to give anything away, so just trust me and give it a watch without looking anything up. I guarantee watching it will help you cement your belief that the limit does not exist even if the world fearfully tells you something can't be done. I'm not typically big on guarantees either, but I stand by this one. All the best to you all!

In order for E not to be correct you have to assume people can't both think the mayor was guilty of ethics violations and his performance is good, but they can. I could think someone is guilty of murdering their incredibly abusive parent, but that doesn't mean I think they are "bad." That's why E explained it for me. The people know technically the mayor is guilty of ethics violations since he is responsible for his office's actions as a whole, but like the murdering child, they don't think committing those ethics violations makes the mayor's performance bad because the reasons were innocent.

I'd love help seeing what is wrong with this reasoning. I know I have to ultimately see why E is wrong and A is right.

I'm trying to understand the phrase "may be sufficient" in answer choice A. I thought sufficiency was concrete--if you have A than you have B. I don't know how to logically reconcile may be sufficient. "It may be that if you have A than you have B." That doesn't seem like sufficiency. Can anyone square this circle for me?

D is one of those rare tricky NA right answers that is also a SA. NA right answers are usually required by the argument but not sufficient, and the LSAT writers put E in as the perfect trap answer to imitate a NA. You have to be able to under timed conditions pick up on the fact that knowledge is not the same as intuitive grasp, and that is really hard when you are primed to look for an answer like E in a NA question. I can see it now in review, but damn LSAT writers. I guess the lesson here is NA right answers can also be a SA and you better make sure every last word of an answer truly is required by the argument if you choose it.

I think most people get this question right because they don't know what a necessary assumption is and answer it like a sufficient assumption question. I think if you got it wrong and fell for E you could be on the right track because you probably understand the concept of NA pretty well. We'll just have to hone in on our attention to detail and remember an NA right answer can also be a SA!

If you're finding that multiple deep breaths take too long, or you are breathing them too fast to be a good reset because you are trying to fit them into 10-15 seconds, I humbly suggest doing one long deep breath and then one shorter breath and a quick sigh.

To guide this and the timing I hear in my head, "Slowly" as I inhale the long breath, then "and a long deep sweeping sigh" as I exhale. Then to guide the shorter breath I hear "Now I lock it up, as I take another little breath and a quick sigh."

You can put it in your own words, but I really like this combination because you get to take your time with the deep breath and then the concept of "locking it up" with a shorter breath really creates the feeling of locking in the calm and getting back in the game.

I find it resets fight or flight, makes me feel calmer and stronger, and actually only takes 10-15 seconds. I learned it from a 1930s recording of a spiritual teacher named Edwin J Dingle, so thanks Mr. Dingle.

Booooo this question, but I finally see why A is right and D is wrong. Ironically, I got it right initially and during blind review thought it had to be D, but as professor McGonagall would say, I think that was a stroke of "sheer dumb luck."

So why is A right and D wrong? Conditional conclusion.

You can't pull a new concept out of thin air and put it into the conclusion. The premises have to support all parts of the conclusion either explicitly or implicitly for it to be a valid argument.

If the conclusion was not conditional here and the argument read, "Computer voice-recognition technology currently cannot distinguish between homophones. As a consequence, it cannot recognize and utilize grammatical and semantic relations among words." Then D would be right, but they had to throw that GD conditional conclusion in there.

We don't just have to connect our one premise, "can't distinguish between homophones" to "can't recognize and utilize grammar," we also have to connect it to "can't accurately translate." The hard part is seeing the implied conditional that helps make that connection. Sure, when assessing outside of timed conditions, it's not too hard to admit that if the tech can't distinguish between Their and There, it can't accurately translate spoken words into written text, but even then it's hard to quickly realize that is the implied premise that allows everything to connect. I think 59% of people got this question right not because of formal logic, but because A more naturally feels like it has to be a NA of the argument when going fast.

So how do we practically get these questions right under timed conditions especially if the answer doesn't naturally "feel right"? I think a good rule of thumb would be that when a conditional conclusion is present, recognize that, and know that the answer must connect the premise to both parts of the conditional. Then use process of elimination.

B is just an inverse of the conclusion which gets us nowhere.

C is irrelevant. Why do we care what humans can do? We're talking about what tech can do.

D doesn't connect the premise to the "can't accurately translate" portion of the conclusion.

E is irrelevant. Why do we care what spell check can do? We're talking about voice recognition.

Hope this helps myself as well as others to not get tripped up by conditional conclusions in the future!

I think the definition of unsuccessful in 26 E isn't very clear. If you read it as the left to right hypothesis of what mirrors do is unsuccessful with the people because it's based on a rotational claim that's not intuitive while the imagined object claim in the front to back hypothesis is one that people understand, then E is completely the right answer. If you read it as unsuccessful as in the left to right hypothesis is unsuccessful as an explanation of the phenomenon of what mirrors do because it uses the rotational claim rather than the imaginary claim, then I see how it is wrong. But how do you know that's the way we should be interpreting unsuccessful?

I see how E shows part to whole but it's throwing me off that the stimulus' premise maps to E's conclusion and E's premise maps to the stimulus' conclusion. So far it has seemed like those typically parallel each other in these types of questions. What am I missing?

C. If there will be people in the audience who understand their musical roots, then at least one musical performance in the concert will be inspired.

At first I translated C to UMR ←s→ IMP because some is at least one. Some is a biconditional and can be read IMP←s→UMR. I thought that was represented in our conditional chain

IMP → AGS → SLA → UMR, but I guess it doesn't work because there are two conditions in the middle.

Rather than a←s→b→c where you could concluded a←s→c it is a←s→b←s→c→d, and you can't go through two somes.

If anyone wants to confirm that's correct be my guest.

Other people do some research on their own, but just as often rely only on their broker or on hunches.

I don't get how the sentence above is captured in:

------------------------←s→ DBH

PISM—m→ /DOR

------------------------←s→ RSBA.

Wouldn't the pure mapping be DOR → DBH or RSBA? It's not some people who do some research on their own, rely only on brokers and some people who do some research on their own, make decisions merely on hunches, but all people who do some research on their own rely on brokers or make decisions merely on hunches.

If you wrote it the way it is in the explanation, the All relationship and the Or relationship aren't represented.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

I felt like A didn't strengthen the support the premises give the conclusion, it just added an additional premise. Isn't adding a new premise one of the main things that the core curriculum says doesn't strengthen an argument? The premises were birds eat spiders and use their webs. How does birds eat spiders' food strengthen the support birds eat spiders and use their webs gives the conclusion?

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20241030-the-island-ruled-by-alien-snakes-and-spiders

After applying the principle, you can't vote for N or L, but you don't know about M.

The principle applies when the candidate's opinions differ from Kay's on at least one issue important to her. There's only one issue important to Kay here and M agrees with her, so the principle doesn't apply and we can't speak to whether or not it is acceptable or unacceptable for her to vote for M.

The principle does apply to N and L because she disagrees with them on at least one issue important to her. Then we look to see if she disagrees with other candidates on more issues important to her and she doesn't (there's only one issue important to her so there are no more issues to agree or disagree on), so is unacceptable to vote for N or L.

I chose D then changed it to C during blind review.

Looking at it visually helped me understand better why C was wrong... https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zyLHVRiSwvRqaQZGMnnY9tecPAO63Id-OVGvAS15yHo/edit?usp=sharing