Beautifully written. Very helpful.

Here's a real example from PT 60 that I don't understand how to mark.

"Suburban housing subdivisions, Duany and his colleagues add, usually contain homes identical not only in appearance but also in etc etc."

I could see that this sentence is a viewpoint, but also an advocate.

is the viewpoint the argument-as-a-whole, as in premises+conclusion?

Also, is evidence merely evidence, as in studies and empirical justification? Or does it include examples?

My understanding would be to mark like this

Math matters. For example, math has been used for many good things.

(VP1) |Math matters.

|For example, math has been used for many good things.

Math matters. Random University did a study which demonstrated math's importance.

(VP1) |Math matters.

(E1^VP1) |Random University did a study which demonstrated math's importance.

Does it work like this?

eg (A1) Dr. Soandso is an advocate of

(V1) Natural Medicine Theory.... is a "natural medicinist," because

(E1) he thinks natural medicine works great, and so recommends its use to all of his patients.

I'm glad you mentioned the V E A approach because I came across that blog and that method made a lot of sense to me, but after reviewing the approach advocated on 7sage I decided it might be counterproductive for me to take on that approach.

Also, I couldn't understand the distinction between V and A.

I imagine a sentence like "The greenists thought that green was the best."

I wouldn't be sure whether to make this as V or A.

It expresses a viewpoint, but it also features an advocate of that viewpoint.

I understood E to mean the 'evidence,' which to me included the argument for any given point.

Awesome perspectives, that is great advice. I am going to test it out today.

My only worry is... where am I going to get fresh passages to mess around with?

Hey Natalya, I'm taking the LSAT in June as well. I would like to have an online study buddy, and would be able to communicate mostly through email, and occasionally Skype.

Get back to me if interested.

Lewis

(A) is tempting because it seems like common sense, but one glance at the conclusion shows its irrelevant. If hte conclusion was a premise for some other conclusion, then it would be topical.

(B) Probably a good answer for an inference question.

(C) Irrelevant

(D) if most teachers hired were underqualified, then hiring more teachers would not improve the achievement of any students.

Just want to write this one out:

Reducing class sizes requires hiring more teachers.

There are no qualified teachers in the region.

If we hire underqualified teachers, then education suffers.

(D) If most hired teachers are underqualified, then hiring more teachers would not improve achievement of any students.

Reducing class sizes (by hiring more teachers) in our district would probably not improve overall achievement

the negation of (D) would be 'most hired teachers are underqualified and some student's achievement has improved.'

Reducing class sizes requires hiring more teachers.

There are no qualified teachers in the region.

If we hire underqualified teachers, then education suffers.

most hired teachers are underqualified and some student's achievement has improved.

Reducing class sizes (by hiring more teachers) in our district would probably not improve overall achievement

The conclusion still holds. It can be true that overall achievement is down while some random student's achievement is up. Maybe that kid has a smart dad?

(E)

This 'cost/benefit' thing seems to pop up a lot. Someone says x has these costs and so we shouldn't do it, but doesn't account for the possible benefits.

Or someone says something would be beneficial without considering the costs involved.

(A) Almost a strengthen.

(B) Mmm, it does do this, I suppose. But not very powerful.

(C) Yep

(D) I can see how this would trip someone up. It's long and convoluted, and says 'financial strength.' But the union member doesn't assume this.

(E) Union member doesn't say a strike is ever a good idea, so this is irrelevant to his argument.

Scientists trying to learn about the past through replicating the conditions... So to evaluate, you'd need to know that the conditions are replicated in the experiment. EG were the materials used in the experiment the same as what would have been used? Are the techniques the same as those used?

(A) Yep.

(B) "other" sites. Irrelevant

(C) Haha.. no

(D) No

(E) No

This one is simple but it intimidated me on timed conditions. The wrong answer choices are all very shallow, (A) (B) and (C) all use the "other" trick that tries to get you to make a statement about something slightly related but irrelevant to the question... (D) also irrelevant..

Logical form of the question:

A -> B -> C -> /D

_____

A-> /D

(E)

So I want to question each of the three defendants without their codefendants or the codefendants counsel present. However, two of the defendants share the same counsel. There's no way for me to question the defendant with shared counsel while his legal counsel is in the room because that counsel is also the codefendant's counsel. Hence, the only way to question the defendant by himself would be if his counsel was not present. If the judge allowed my request, then that would mean he was allowing me to question the defendant without his legal counsel present. The judge strikes it down, which suggests that the judge has rejected this possibility. Defendants are not allowed to be questioned without their counsel present.

(B)

The rest of the choices are irrelevant principles.

oh good idea

This one was pretty intuitive for me..

However, (C) was a little tricky for me to parse.

MOST coffeehouses that are well-designed feature artwork.

I'm going to try to falsify this one.

What if most coffeehouses that are well-designed DONT feature artwork?

Let's say that in the world (maybe in the possible world where Hitler stayed in power and took over the world) there are only 5 coffeehouses and 5 restaurants. All these 10 public places are well-designed to German standards.

However, only 2 coffee houses feature artwork, while all 5 restaurants feature artwork.

We see, then, that 7 out of 10, that is, MOST well-designed public places feature artwork. 3 out of 5, that is, most coffee houses, though, do not feature artwork.

Therefore, it mustn't be true that most well-designed coffee houses feature artwork.

This one didn't give me too much trouble, except that I was expecting the right answer to mention that the claim is a sub conclusion. It still seems to me that the claim IS a subconclusion...

P An uncomfortable drive eventually becomes fatigued and so can't concentrate

P The better the visibility from the driver's seat, the more aware the driver can be.

SC Driving position affects both comfort and the ability to see the road clearly.

C The position of a driver's seat probably impacts driving safety.

I reasoned, therefore, that even though it IS a subconclusion, that doesn't mean that it's NOT a premise. (Subconclusion = Major premise).

The answer, then, doesn't HAVE to tell you it's a subconclusion, because its true to say it's a premise.

Or did i get this wrong?

Because of the mild winter...

(1) birds feed naturally instead of at a feeder

(2) birds stay where they are instead of migrating.

thus this mild winter is responsible for the large population this year.

To strengthen, you could support either of these two options.

(C) is correct. Birds who eat at feeders are more vulnerable to predators than those foraging naturally. That supports the idea that the population is up, because those birds that would have been lunch are still around.

(A) okay... This would be good if it was stronger, like if it said increases ALWAYS occur following unusual patterns. As it is though, it's very neutral.

(B) When birds don't migrate south, their mating behaviours change.

So what? Do they change in such a way that they have more babies? Or do they completely lose their libido? This is neutral.

(D) Birds who don't migrate from their summer spot in the winter exhaust their food supply. This would be a great weaken answer.

(E) Bird sometimes visit feeders even when they can find sufficient food naturally.

Cool! Whatever!

Necessary Assumption Q

Every domesticated large mammal species alive today was domesticated thousands of years ago.

Since then, people tried to domesticate every wild large mammal species worth domesticating. (these species, then, didn't become domesticated)

Therefore, MOST wild large mammal species alive today either would be difficult to domesticate or not worth domesticating.

(A) at one time or another people have tried to domesticate each wild large mammal.

Necessary? No, the argument allows for the possibility that a wild large mammal species that isn't worth domesticating such as a water buffalo, maybe, was not subject to domestication.

(B) It is not much easier today to domesticate wild large mammal species than in the past.

Yes, this is necessary. The argument concludes that most wild large mammals alive today would be difficult to domesticate. Well, if domesticating wild large mammals has become much easier today, then that would make this conclusion very suspect.

(C) Not all LMS domesticated in past are still alive. So what? They don't have to be.

(D) The easier to domesticate, the more worthwhile.

Cool, whatever. I bet a squirrel is easy to domesticate, but you can't milk a squirrel.

(E) the first current large mammals to be domesticated were the easiest to domesticate. Unnecessary, what if they were hard to domesticate but the domesticators were really determined?

(B) is correct.

Sufficient Assumption Q

Here we have two options for what a member of council "ought" to do.... Any member of council ought to either vote against x or abstain from voting. This sentence is context. Now we get to the argument..

Premise: If ALL(members) abstain, then the matter will be decided by the voters.

Ax(M)Abstain -> DBV

Conclusion: At least one member of the city council should vote against the proposal. (AKA It is not the case that all members should abstain... )

/(Ax(M)Abstain)

P: Ax(M)Abstain -> DBV

C: /(Ax(M)Abstain)

The gap here....

The activist wants to conclude that one member of the council should vote against the proposal. If no members vote against, then the matter will be decided by the voters. The activist, apparently, does not want this to happen.

The activist, then, feels like the voters should not decide this matter. The assumption, then, is:

/DBV

So

Ax(M)Abstain -> DBV

/DBV

/Ax(M)Abstain

(B) is correct.

(A) IF Ax(M)Abstain, then voters will vote in favor. Well, we don't know enough to know if the activist cares about this. What if he actually wants the voters to vote in favor? with only the premise and conclusion to go on, we don't know if this is possible or not. This is tricky because the assumption in the argument is, as shown above, that the voters should not decide. It makes sense that the activist doesn't want the voters to vote because they would vote against the way the activist wants the vote to go. It SEEMS that if he wants the council to vote against or abstain, he is trying to get the bill killed. However, we don't know this. It could be that he does want the bill to pass, perhaps he wants the people to revolt against the congress and so wants the congress to vote against so the people will become furious and riot. Who knows?!

(C) No members will vote in favor...

This seems like it is an assumption because, well, we know from the real world that you always have an option to vote for a proposal. But here, we are presented with a one or the other situation, you either abstain or you vote against. The option of voting for is not on the table in this stimulus, which is just fine.

This answer would trip you up if you didnt understand that classic LSAT move.

(D) I selected this at first, which is why i BR'd the questions..

It's tricky because, agian, it seems intuitively obvious from what is said in the stimulus that the activist doesn't want the bill to pass. He wants it to get shot down, so it seems. It would make sense, sort of, to plug in this assumption, that if you at least one person votes against, then the matter WONT be decided by the voters.

I thought, at first, okay.. that means that you are guaranteed that the voters won't decide if someone votes against, which is apparently what the activist wants.

Sure, it SEEMS like that's what the activist wants, but the activist didn't explicitly SAY that he doesn't want the voters to decide. That is an assumption that is tempting to bring in, given what you know about activists, etc.

Even if you plugged (D) into the argument, you would STILL need the assumption that the voters shouldn't decide. This answer might strengthen the argument, definitely, if you had the assumption that the voters shouldn't decide, which is why it tripped me up. It is a potential strengthen answer, but it's useless without the assumption that the voters shouldn't decide.

(E) If one ought to vote against, then other members out to abstain.

Ummmm, this one is just kind of nonsensical to me. It sort of hints at what the activist seems to want, ie that most should abstain but at least one should vote so that the voters don't decide. However, we again would require the assumption that the voters shouldn't decide. This wouldn't even strengthen in that scenario, so I don't know, so it's really not a good choice.

lol so true

You have eleven different shrimp species with substantial genetic differences, maybe white shrimp with a white shrimp gene, black shrimp with a black shrimp gene, purple shrimp etc etc.

The scientist is surprised at this fact, because the currents would likely carry the baby shrimp between reefs, which would allow the different shrimp to interbreed and become genetically indistinguishable.

That is... the baby black shrimp are carried to the white shrimp reef and procreate until they have little grey shrimp babies.

So, what gives? Why are there they still different colours of shrimp, why arent' they all some nasty brownish grey colour?

Well, what if the shrimp BECOME white because of the reef they live in? What if the white shrimp become white because they live in a white reef and the black shrimp that travel to the white reef all get eaten by shrimp-eating sharks who spot them right away?

This was my thought pattern before turning to the answer choices...

(A) classic "Other guys" choice.. Who cares about the comparison between shrimp and crawdads, for example?

(B) The shrimp at any reef differ from each other genetically, despite interbreeding.

This is a weird one, and indeed I chose it in my timed session.

Looking at it now, I think I chose it because I didn't understand what it was saying (AGAIN).

My interpretation now.... in the white shrimp reef, some white shrimp are off-white while others are beige and others are pure white. Well......so what? Even go a little farther... there are some pink shrimp and some yellow shrimp...so what? There is SOME difference even though white shrimp are favored. This is fine, but doesn't help us understand why the shrimp are not all a nasty brownish grey colour...

(C) Before they have babies, shrimp ALWAYS go back to the reef they were born in. Before they make babies, white shrimp ALWAYS go back to the white reef and so ALWAYS have white babies. Hence, though white shrimp are carreid to the black reef, they NEVER mate with black shrimp, so you NEVER get grey shrimp babies, and the shrimp all maintain their original colour, or their "genetic differences."

Sounds good to me!

(D) Most shrimp hatched at any reef are no longer there anymore once they start breeding. Okay.... Most white shrimp leave for the black reef once they are ready to mate because those black shrimp are oh so exotic....

So what? The question remains.. why aren't the shrimp a nasty brownish grey colour?

(E) Currents probably carry many baby shrimps in any given reef to the open ocean rather than to another reef.

Okay, so there are SOME (many=some) shrimp who drift out into the infinite abyss, and so, I suppose, never breed.

So, this is PRETTY good, I think... If the shrimp are not travelling to other reefs, then it would mean there are only black shrimp at the black reef, or whatever.

But it only says some of them are. And the stimulus says that the ocean currents carry the shrimp to other reefs probably. So the currents probably carry shrimp to other reefs, and many of the shrimp probably instead get carried out to sea. This makes sense to me, but doesn't explain why the white shrimp that DO make it to the black reef haven't interbred with black shrimp to make grey shrimp babies.

Okay.... (c) it is.

So the answer of a MBT question must always be a missing conclusion?

There are no counter-examples to this rule?

I think this is a good question to study. I found it a bit more difficult than other Resolve questions because the wrong answer choices are, though wrong, still relevant. Often, I find the Resolve questions are quite easy because the wrong answers are often obviously irrelevant. In this question, answer (D), for example, is relevant and it does mention something dangerous about taking this drug. However, it is wrong because it requires an additional assumption. You can't know that the drug will be misused, perhaps it will be used correctly every time.

sub·tle

[suht-l] Show IPA

adjective, sub·tler, sub·tlest.

2.

fine or delicate in meaning or intent; difficult to perceive or understand: subtle irony.

4.

requiring mental acuteness, penetration, or discernment: a subtle philosophy.

5.

characterized by mental acuteness or penetration: a subtle understanding.