Loophole Flaw (Provable)

We need to find the correct answer that correctly/ accurately describes how the author overlooked our loophole in service of their argument

in this context, we see the author making a general claim (ie. more older more x, without proving that those same older folks would have given their info in the first place if they were younger)

Answer Chosen - D

Correct Answer - A

Why is D wrong?

• The author is not committing the classic circular reasoning flaw

Why is answer A correct?

• A. is the loophole we needed to use to call out the author

• the author overlooked the fact, failed to prove that these same people (older) would give their information over the phone had they been younger

• What if --> they would not give info even if they were younger

Strengthen (Powerful)

We need to find the strongest/ most powerful answer that will either add more plausibility or defend an alternative explanation

in this context, we are adding plausibility to our argument

Answer Chosen - C

Correct Answer - A

Why is C incorrect?

• Irrelevant = Profits

• We do not care about the profits because the manager is only talking about the sales that increased

• just off this notion, we can conquer that C is wrong

Why is A correct?

• it adds plausibility to the argument being made by the manager

• if MOS have been going down for companies that do not offer unlimited free shipping, but it went up for the managers company, then it adds plausibility to the idea that the policy change is what indeed caused the increase

Loophole Flaw (Provable)

We need to find an answer that correctly calls out the author with our loophole.

whilst doing LF, useful to use the WHAT IF gimmick as it allows us to grammatically try to piece together our counter to the argument being made by the author in question

Answer Chosen - B

Correct Answer - E

Why is B incorrect?

• it is simply irrelevant

• it would not make sense for us to call out the author by drawing on whether they considered the possibility that the MP can have any other type of flaw aside from design flaws

• the author is solely talking about design flaws and we need to stay within the bounds of the argument

Why is E Correct?

• E. is our Loophole

• while the author does bring up evidence (ie. liable to process information incorrectly because not all of its circuits could be checked manually) that their has been issues previously associated with the microp. and then tries to say that there is no chance of any flaws moving fwd. since they are now made entirely from computers

• but what if, the computers could still be faulty as well? we can not assume that there wont be any flaws at all

Flaw (Provable)

We need to find an answer that correctly/ accurately describes how the author messed up in service of their argument

in this context, we are dealing with the author making an overgeneralization/ relative v. absolute flawed move in service of their argument

Answer Chosen - D

Correct Answer - E

Why is D incorrect?

• it is not descriptively accurate

• the author is not making the assertion that if you do not have a given property then you are unhealthy at all. its not mentioned

• they are instead, trying to say that those who slightly weigh more are healthier, and so to be healthy you got to be overweight which is the flaw at hand

Why is E correct?

• E. is descriptively accurate

• we are seeing how the author talks about how a group of people can have a property (being healthy) and then concluding, as an overgeneralization, that to be healthy as a whole, one must be overweight (absolute)

• this is how the author is messing up in service of their argument.

Flaw (Provable)

We need to find an answer that accurately describes how the author messed up in service of their argument

in this case, the author is committing the class conditional flaw (Nec. v. Suff. flaw)

Answer Chosen - C

Correct Answer - A

Why is C incorrect?

• We need to really look at the vocabulary here to understand how conditional reasoning is being used in the argument being made.

  • MO --> HSI (the wording - depends upon really gives us that insight into what we are dealing with.)

• C. does not accurately describe that. the author is not relying on a claim that x implies the existence of y, but rather, that x depends upon the existence of y and that is a v. diff assumption that the author is making

Why is A correct?

• A. accurately describes how the author is committing the classic N v. S flaw

• the author is asserting that MO --> HSI but that does not mean that if HSI --> MO (bad will be punished) exists

Principle-Strengthen (Powerful)

We need to find an answer that will strengthen the principle within the stimulus

ties together the premises and the conclusion to further advance the argument

Answer Chosen - B

Correct Answer - C

Why is B incorrect?

• The claims being made by the Ethicist are not about whether someone should be BLAMED, but rather, if one's actions are praiseworthy. Since B. does not touch on praiseworthiness, the answer is wrong already.

Why is C correct?

• I thought that there were two principles being laid out, and since C only touched on one aspect of the principle/statement (affording), i figured it was wrong on this point

• C. is correct though, because it does in fact touch on the praiseworthiness on an action/ behaviour and does in fact touch on the two principles/ statements with the overcoming of a desire and being able to afford it

Principle-Conform (Provable)

We need to find an answer that conforms to the principle in the stimulus

Answer Chosen - B

Correct Answer - D

Why is B incorrect?

• Wrong Trigger/ Wrong Conclusion

• B is saying that one should consider ALL THE INFORMATION, whereas, we are looking for an answer that determines that the INFOMRATION IS INADEQUATE (one needs to be skeptical of the info)

• based on this notion, B. is incorrect and does not conform to the principle being stated in the stimulus

Why is D correct?

• Given that the principle is embedded on someone making a decision based on inadequate information that is being presented in front of them, D conforms to the principle

• ones personal experience = inadequate information

• study various models histories associated to the vehicle = adequate information that can be used to make a well informed decision

Describe organization/ Structure (Question Types)

Art/ Single position/ Spotlight (Frameworks)

Answer Chosen - C

Correct Answer - A

Why is C incorrect?

• We can see that Parry and Parry Jr. can be considered as influential scholars, but this answer ignores the first paragraph, which has nothing to do with Parry or Parry Jr. and so, it is wrong.

Why is A correct?

• This is the best answer bc the situation that is being identifies is in P1 and the Ps that follow essentially lead up to the situation that happened in P1

Solutions/ Takeaways

• Look at first and last sentence of each paragraph to get a better feel of the organization of the passage

Implied (Question Types)

Art/ Single position (Frameworks)

Answer Chosen - E

Correct Answer - C

Why is E incorrect?

• We can not support this answer based on the passage

• the author never speaks on anything regarding what is required from a fake to have artistic merit

• the only reason why I chose this answer was bc I felt like it was drawing a connection to the example of the African tribes

Why is C correct?

• P1 provides us with the support

• the merit of the object itself (fake) is a separate issue

• this portion of the text allows us to infer C is the correct answer bc the author is trying to say that it something we do not know about/ not looking to explore into in more depth

• so, we can safely say that it may or may not (soft-wording) because we do not know

Excpt/ Stated (Question Type)

Art/ Single position (Framework)

Answer Chosen - A

Correct Answer - E

Why is A incorrect?

• Stated within the passage

• the text begins by noting a variety of possibilities somewhere between the two extremes.

• We can infer that this is something that falls under an example of what the author is stating within the passage since a variety of possibilities can be taken as categories of art and between the two extremes can be taken as neither wholly fake nor wholly orginal

Why is E correct?

• Sneaky way that this is the right answer

• yes, there were other artists who started making fakes because they were inspired by the original artist (hence the Michelangelo connection), but the passage does not make any kind of connection to CONTEMPORARY artists and this is how we can properly infer that E is the correct answer. It was never stated

Solutions/ Takeaways

• Accuracy over Timing always

• Read the answers with pure intention nothing is truly off the table until I can genuinely determine that it is wrong, or in this case, stated/ supported

• Answers works for us, we do not work for them

NA (Provable)

We need to find an answer that if negated, will allow us to either hurt the argument or will provide us with a missing link between the premises to the conclusion

Answer Chosen - E

Correct Answer - B

Why is E incorrect?

• even if negated, this does not hurt the argument

• the author is only concerned with material well being not being a guaranteed part of the good life not that it can not be a part of it

Why is B correct?

• if negated this hurts the argument --> it tells us that there is not positive relationship between approving of your OC/ P and leading a morally virtuous life

Flaw (Provable)

We need to find an answer that accurately describes how the author messed up in service of their argument

Answer Chosen - E

Correct Answer - E

Why is E correct?

• The author concludes their argument by inferring that disliking vegetables is somewhat determined genetically

• they used a sample of two groups and found out that one of the groups (ones that disliked the veggies) had this gene and drew that inference from that finding

• so, if the author infers that this group, who had the gene, did not like veggies, they also inferred that the other group did not have that gene

• but what if --> you have the gene and you do not like veggies lol?

  • this allows us to call out the author for making that assumption in service of their argument

Loophole Flaw (Provable)

We are looking for a provable answer that effectively describes how the author messed up in service of their argument

they overlooked our loophole (correct answer)

Answer Chosen - E

Correct Answer - D

Why is E incorrect?

• Not descriptively accurate

• the author is not concerned with whether or not the existing artwork's affect changes the overall aesthetic fulfillment that people get from the art

• the author is instead concerned with the idea that since this art exists, there is no reason to have more art because everyone's tastes of art can already be fulfilled

but what if --> some people did not have access to these great works of art, but rather, had access to other works of art that are being made contemporarily

This is why D is our answer!

• Because the author assumes that all this great art is accessible, there is virtually no reason for cotemporary art to be made

• but what if people from the North Sentinel Island, for example, do not have access to the great works of art made, but instead had access to the great art work being made contemporarily on the island? or from somewhere else?

• this allows us to call out the author for undermining the value of contemporary artists who in fact do play some role in fulfillment of artwork

Role (Provable)

We are looking for an answer that provably describes the role that the specified point in the stimulus is playing within the stimulus

Answer Chosen - B

Correct Answer - C

Why is B wrong?

• The ornithologists do not reject the claim that reforestations is happening. they in fact, acknowledge that this is true

• the reason behind why I chose this answer was due to the support window: it is fragmentation of forest rather than reduction of forest size that endangers songbird species.

Why is C correct?

• the text being referred to in the question stem is in fact COMPATIBLE with the conclusion being made by the ornithologists because it does not undermine their conclusion

• although they are acknowledging that deforestation is happening, they are making it clear that the issue is still persisting with respect to the songbirds

• so they are essentially saying that while there is a solution in place, there is still a worsening threat to those affected

Sufficient Assumption (Powerful)

We need to find the most powerful answer that will render the argument 100% true

it will tie together the premises and the conclusion

Answer Chosen - D

Correct Answer - D

Why is D Correct?

• It is hard for players to identify with these figures (NVG figures) (premises)

• Makes them less compelling to players (Conclusion)

• When we look at D, it effectively takes these two points (P+C) and combines them together to render the argument 100% true

Sufficient Assumption (Powerful)

We need to choose the most powerful answer that allows us to render the argument 100% correct

the answer will tie together the premises and the conclusion

Answer Chosen - D

Correct Answer - B

Why is it not D?

• We only care about whether people can compare the prices charged to what the repairs are actually worth

• Whether or not the prices are higher or lower is irrelevant to the what we are looking for in our answer

Why is B correct?

• In order to understand why B is correct, we need to look at the stimulus with a bit more intent

• prospective buyer of an item must be able to..

  • contact a large number of independent prospective sellers

  • compare the prices charged for the item to what the item is worth.

• Personally, I look at this as triggers. They both need to be met for a free market to function properly

• Since some people can not determine what the repairs are worth then we are technically violating that trigger and of course as a result, the auto repair industry is not a properly functioning free market

MBT (Provable)

We need to find an answer that must be true based on the stimulus

we are essentially trying to derive an inference that can be backed up by the stimulus

Answer Chosen - E

Correct Answer - C

Why is E wrong?

• We can not support this answer because we do not know anything about the amount of lawyers that are not athletes

Why is C correct?

• All As are B and no C are A

• there for some B's are not C's

• best way I could make sense of it

Weaken (Powerful)

We need to find an answer that provides us with an alternative explanation or hurts the plausibility of the argument

Answer Chosen - D

Correct Answer - A

Why is it not D?

• It actually provides more plausibility to the argument because it is essentially saying that the publication of the poll results in the last weeks before the election causes people to vote for the more popular candidate

• The author did not say this explicitly but it can be used as a way to support their argument and as a result, it wrong because we are trying to undermine the authors argument

Why is A correct?

• This provides us with a way to hurt the plausibility of the argument

• what if --> only a few people are actually influenced by the results of polls being released during the two weeks prior to the election

  • we can then argue against the authors plan because it wont necessarily reach its goal given that not not everyone is affected by it

• A seems likes such an easy answer to choose, but it does come off as a weak answer and so for that reason I did not choose it. Now knowing why the A is right, it makes complete sense that we only need to say that a few are actually impacted by such a phenomenon and so the plan the author is trying to advocate for is meritless

Stated (Question Type)

Law/ Problem-analysis/ Single position (Frameworks)

Answer Chosen - E

Correct Answer - D

Why is E wrong?

• Too strong - rarely

• No support - we can not support the contention that common law is rarely used as a basis for the claims that the NA make in their cases

Why is D correct?

• We have support

• We can infer that common law does not currently provide the clearest basis for establishing that the NA have standing because of the way the P is explaining how CL can, in fact, create an expansion of it

Application (Question Type)

Law/ Problem-analysis/ Single position (Frameworks)

Answer Chosen - B

Correct Answer - E

Why is B wrong?

• B. involves the owner of the property on which the grave is located.

• The P is clearly stating the owner of the property on which the grave is located --> Therefore, we can conclude that this is, in fact in alignment with what a judge would actually rule in favour of (agree) as opposed to deny or disagree with

Why is E correct?

• Really need to look closely at the wording here. Since it uses the term " disparate tribes, we can safely conclude that a judge would deny a motion in advance of disinterment because they are not related to that tribe directly.

• There is also no relation to heirs, owners of property or properties that have an interest in preserving a particular grave

Solutions

• Read w intent

• allow the wording to resonate with you before choosing an answer

• idc that ts is level 3 i want to get it all right and the best way is by practicing more and learning from these mistakes !!!

WSE (Question Stem)

Comparative /Science (Frameworks)

Answer Chosen - E

Correct Answer - C

Why is C Correct?

• To be able to understand why C is correct, we have to go into the answers knowing that the OBMs are used for deeper drilling, since the WBMs are used for shallower drilling

• If we say that all the shallow depths have been drilled (tapped), then we can strengthen the contention that the OBMs will be used more in the future because it is the only real way to go now

• This is why C is the correct answer, effectively strengthening the prediction

Why is E incorrect?

• Just because Barite is common and irrelevant to us, we need a way to strengthen the idea that it will be used more in the future as opposed to the WBMs

Question Stem Tags/ Implied (Question Stems)

Comparative / Science (Frameworks)

Answer Chosen - D

Correct Answer - B

Why is D incorrect?

• Both passages do not support this claim

• If we have no support, then we can automatically conclude that this answer is wrong

Why is B correct?

• Support for PA = It is also used as an inert filler in some foods and is more familiar in its medical use as the "barium meal" administered before X-raying the digestive tract

  • We can infer from this that it is, in fact,t safe for humans to consume since it is currently being used in medical proceedings

• PA does not have a stance on whether or not they actually are safe for marine organism consumption

• PB supports the contention that it is, in fact, harmful for marine organisms, but has no say on whether or not they are harmful to humans

Solutions/ Takeaways

• V. hard question because it requires you to actually see if any inference that is drawn is independent of and does not co-align with the other passage

• avoid answers we can not support

Implied/ Purpose of passage (Question Type)

Comparative/ Science (Frameworks)

Answer Chosen - C

Correct Answer - B

Why is C wrong?

• We can not support C based on the information provided in the two passages

• PA does not mention the environmental impacts that are correlated with oil drilling, and that alone allows us to eliminate C

Why is B correct?

• PA = Describe drilling muds

• PB = provide facts about drilling muds and to describe two types of DM (WBM & OBM)

• These two points alone allow us to determine what the primary purpose of the two passages is

Solutions/ Takeaways

• Understand the passage

• Not sure if the comparison passages are removed entirely from LSAT, but still worth studying

• if we can not support an answer, or in this case, we can only connect one passage or if we can not connect any then we have to move on from the answer because it is wrong

Strengthen (Powerful)

We need to find the most powerful answer that will either add plausibility to the argument or it will dissolve any kind of alternative explanation for the argument

Answer Chosen - C

Correct Answer - B

Why is C wrong?

• C weakens the argument actually

• it provides an alternative explanation for the argument being advanced by the author

Why is B right?

• B is the contrapositive of C haha

• it is effectively ruling out the possibility that these babies had been exposed to music from other cultures, which in turn would not allow us to conclude that humans have a biological predisposition to pay more attention to those intervals

• B does not allow for the AE to stand and therefore strengthens the argument

NA (Provable)

We need to find an answer that if negated, would weaken the argument

or, we are looking for the missing link that ties the premises to the conclusion

in this context, we are looking at a question stem that involves finding a missing link

Answer Chosen - D

Correct Answer - E

Why is D incorrect?

• D. weakens the argument

• we are trying to find an answer that acknowledges the concept of experts being involved and as a result, citizens lack the knowledge of being able to be included in determining how lawbreaker's punishments are determined

• this answer was going the wrong way and I can see how. While reading this answer I thought the underlying assumption was that citizens do in fact have a right to be involved in these matters because of the premises in the first portion of the stimulus

Why is E Correct?

• If negated, E allows us to break the argument apart by casting doubt on the idea that experts are the only ones who should have a say on the fate of these law breakers

• It also ties in the two premises in the argument, allowing us to bridge the premises to the conclusion

Solutions

• Read slower

• accuracy over question volume

• answers work for us, we do not work for them