I was having SO much trouble understanding this question, and diagraming it like this helped a ton! Challenging casual chain here - good practice for lawgic techniques:

STIMULUS:

First Sentence: Most TV shows depend on funding from advertisers and would be canceled without such funding.

Reasoning: First clause "most TV shows depend on funding from advertisers" and "would be canceled without such funding" are saying the same thing. If the TV shows depend on funding, they would be canceled without it. So, 'without' is a negate sufficient. In order to chain up with next clause, negate 'would be canceled' to be 'would survive'

Lawgic: survive -> ad funding

Second sentence: However, advertisers will not pay to have their commercials aired during a TV show unless many people watching the show buy the advertised products as a result.

Reasoning: The 'unless' is a negate sufficient indicator. So here you want to chain up with last lawgic conditional chain.

Lawgic: ad funding -> many people buy

survive -> ad funding -> many people buy

Third sentence: So if people generally fail to buy the products advertised during their favorite shows, these shows will soon be canceled.

Reasoning: Using an if, then statement.

Lawgic: people don't buy -> shows cancelled

contrapositive - survive -> many people buy (just a restatement of previous lawgic chain)

Forth sentence: Thus, anyone who feels that a TV show is worth preserving ought to buy the products advertised during that show.

Reasoning: Gives a task to individuals rather than talking about people generally. Call to action.

Lawgic: if feel worth preserving -> you should buy products

////////

ANSWER CHOICES:

A. If a TV show that one feels to be worth preserving would be canceled unless one took certain actions, then one ought to take those actions.

Why incorrect: It's anyone who feels it's worth preserving, not 'one'. Also really vague.

B. If a TV show would be canceled unless many people took certain actions, then everyone who feels that the show is worth preserving ought to take those actions.

Why correct: Translation into lawgic is survive -> many people took actions (or buy), then it feel worth preserving -> should take actions (or buy). This directly conforms with the two major lawgic chains made from stimulus.

C. If a TV show is worth preserving, then everyone should take whatever actions are necessary to prevent that show from being canceled.

Why incorrect: The 'worth preserving' is not a general idea, it's specific to the personal level and what they should do if they feel this way. Also, whatever actions are necessary is never mentioned.

D. If one feels that a TV show is worth preserving, then one should take at least some actions to reduce the likelihood that the show will be canceled.

Why incorrect: The lawgic from the stimulus isn't just telling us to take 'some actions' its telling us to do something very specific which is to buy the products. Also, nothing mentioned on reducing the likelihood of the show being cancelled.

E. If a TV show would be canceled unless many people took certain actions, then those who feel most strongly that it is worth preserving should take those actions.

Why incorrect: Nothing related to 'those who feel most strongly' should take those actions in stimulus. We are told that those people who feel its worth preserving should buy the products.

Knowing a bit of background about glass blowing REALLY helped answering this question - D felt like the obvious choice bc of course when glass is heated to its transition temp (when it turns into a liquid most likely) it would start to become liquid and therefore flow. Recommending the show Blown Away on Netflix for help visualizing this ahaha

@LSAT101 Question 26 is talking about the dialogue in between Denise and Reshmi. This is the structure of a Point at Issue question, where two people state their arguments about something, and then the question stem typically asks about what they agree or disagree on. This isn't most strongly supported, because you aren't finding some claim that is really supported by the language in the stimulus. You are instead identifying what both people may agree on given the information given. It's similar, but slightly different structure. I'd rephrase the question if it was a MSS question as follows: Which of the following is most strongly supported by the dialogue between Denise and Reshmi above? In any case, it should be quite obvious if a question is PoA given seeing the stimulus bc it looks different in that it has two people's dialogue clearly identified! Hope that helps

@IsabelleSantiago me too!! Hope you've seen progress since Jan!

@djice27 How do you diagram questions like this? I feel like I'm always focused on the wrong part with the structure of the question!

@ConqueringLSAT The answer isn't C here, because we don't know anything about each individual member of the group of social theorists. This type of flaw requires something to be said as true about each member of a group, and then a conclusion making an assumption that the group as a whole also has this view / assumption.

@e.wimoine If something is necessary then it must occur for something else to occur - ie. if Juno is a cat, then she is an animal. So the necessary condition here is that she is an animal, she has to be one to be a cat. All cats are animals, not all animals are cats. So, in a similar way, there can also be other necessary factors (other things that Juno the cat has to be). Or in a causal logic example, if Juno the cat doesn't get fed at 6am, then she will be hangry. So it's necessary that if she doesn't get fed, this effect will take place. We aren't given other info like if Juno the cat doesn't get fed at 6am, she will paw at the door ... but it could be true. We only know the relationship of that one cause to effect. All we know is if that cause is happening, the effect has to happen.

@CollinEsquirol I'm going to try to explain how I thought about this question here! So the phrase we are analyzing is "private ownership of the means of production ultimately destroys any society that sanctions it," which can be found in the first sentence. This sentence begins with the phrase "some people have maintained," so I know it is a concession point (also given that the rest of the argument refutes it). So then, I read the answer choices.

A is wrong because it isn't no more applicable to less technologically advanced societies than to more technologically advanced societies. This is saying it is not applicable equally to either of the societies compared. The argument actually takes a stance on this, and says that this is potentially true of less technologically advanced societies.

B is also wrong because it isn't really a hypothesis, and isn't explained by the argument. It is refuted by the argument!

C is our right answer here because it correctly identifies how the argument suggests this concession point is applicable to the sharing of resources (we see this because the second sentence says it is true of less technologically advanced societies that must share resources to survive, and the answer just condenses this to "sharing of resources"), and only may be true for societies dependent on the introduction of new technologies (which is supported by the 3rd sentence which is a premise).

D is wrong because it isn't incompatible with the needs of any society. The argument admits that it might in fact be applicable to a less technologically advanced society. Finally, E is wrong because the argument doesn't say that this is true for any society which matches the rest of the answer choice, just that it may be applicable to less tech advanced societies. We don't know what the argument thinks about other societies here, it is out of the scope of the argument!

@OmarAbuaita Thanks! Super helpful

@CodyLevant I don't think you can use any additional software like that on test day

I had so much trouble with this one! It didn't click that I should be considering what is the least useful for the homeowners. What was the process of knowing to put yourself in the perspective of the homeowner here instead of the government or the home lighting industry?

@OmarAbuaita I get this, but I think I had trouble bc I wasn't necessarily putting myself in the shoes of the homeowner. Why wouldn't we think like the gov or home lighting industry for evaluating the argument?

@aldertree00644 Thanks for this!! Super helpful! I added in my notes to not assume that "people who believe they are X" overlap completely with "people who are X"! It's more of a venn diagram in my mind

@dlpaltiel770309 This was the confusion I was having! Can you help explain how this clicked for you? I'm still kind of lost on how sunscreen is even relevant given that those people are the people who are most likely to get it in the first place. Wouldn't this demonstrate that sunscreen isn't unlikely, but it isn't necessarily likely either to reduce a person's risk of developing skin cancer?

@smk22a231 I'm kind of also still confused on how E isn't correct. The way I interpreted it was that the people who are using sunscreen are the ones that are already (I see now the whole believe thing weakens this concept significantly) more susceptible to skin cancer. In other words it's not that using sunscreen is unlikely to reduce a person's risk of developing skin cancer, because those people were already going to get skin cancer. It really reminded me of previous questions where the correct answer choice is something like well duh this proposed cause to the affect isn't actually relevant because the people selected to test it were already more inclined to the affect. Can someone help clarify this here? Is the only reason this question is wrong because the people believe themselves to be susceptible to skin cancer, and we can't assume from this that they therefore are the most susceptible to skin cancer? Maybe also because we can't assume those who use sunscreens most regularly are making up a statistically sig portion of the 'widespread use of sunscreens'?

I have a question regarding why C is incorrect. I didn't end up choosing this answer, but I was tempted because it seemed like the contrapositive of LN -m-> primary commercial rasp grower. I was unsure if it is possible to get the contrapositive from a most/many arrow. Can someone clarify what the rule is here? Are there any circumstances in which you can take the contrapositive of a many arrow? Thanks!!

@DashiellBibler This was super helpful for me!! I used the examples of bears (bc I love them). I said the only bears in CA are black bears. This translates to bears in CA -> black bears. In other words being a bear in CA is sufficient to being a black bear, but not necessary. Black bears are also found in Alaska. I also tried this out with a necessary condition indicator: Only bears can make me want to run and hug them simultaneously. Translation: R and H -> B and the contrapositive is /B -> /R or /H. I think I'm going to go on the concept of bears and make examples for all the indicator words!!!

@monmon thanks for providing ur thought process for this!! yeah the and's and or's and conditionals inside conditionals can feel so complicated haha

@LayHen11 Yeah I feel similarly! I like the starter "it's not the case that" for negating statements or relationships, rather than using the lawgic.

I don't get why you can replace the 'or' for an arrow. Which lesson was this? I remember the negation and then flipping the two sides of the arrow, but not switching in between arrows and 'or' statements

wow this explanation was so helpful

Hey all! My name is Lauren and I am currently in Boston working as a Paralegal! I am planning on studying to take the LSAT in Aug! Would love to met study buddies on the East Coast!! Good luck to everyone here!

Good luck everyone!!