What is the correct way of translating 'not all' statements into lawgic?
It seems like there are 2 correct answers and I am not sure which one is the correct one to use in LSAT LR section.
For example, from PT 82, "Not all tarantula species have poison fangs."
Should I translate this as /T -> PF (because there are 2 conditional indicators all and not) or as T (-)some PF?
Thank you so much!
Personally, I think this is a terrible question. (B) can't be a better answer compared to (D) for 2 reasons.
In order to make (B) a correct answer choice,
1. One needs to make an unwarranted assumption that the driver could hear only one side of a cell-phone conversation of a passenger. What if the passenger was speaking in speaker mode? Whereas in (D), it is explicitly stated that the listener could hear only one side.
2. One needs to make an unwarranted assumption that diverting attention necessarily leads to less performance. But what if one is proficient enough in certain task that he can multitask without lack of performance?
I don't see how (B) is any better than (D).
Hello, thanks for all the people at a great community in 7Sage and J.Y., I recently broke 170 for the first time.
I was really surprised because I've been constantly scoring in the range of 163 and 166.
I might have been just very lucky although I hope it was not.
However, whatever I do, my blind review score does not go above 173 and I am wondering if it is possible to improve my BR score and how anybody succeeded in doing so if it is possible. I am feeling like 173 is the max score I can get and although I would be very happy with that score, I am just hoping that I can score better on the PTs because I usually tend to score worse on the PTs than in real exams due to anxiety and etc. I tried reviewing all question in LR and RC sections regardless of whether the questions were circled or not, but I still got 173.
Thank you so much in advance for all your help!
If (D) were to be correct, question stem would be sth. like "These economists assert that planners could solve these problems effectively by reducing the existing whatever trade imbalances that exist b/t the countries."
But this is obviously not the case in the QS we got and the biggest assumption that the author makes is that obtaining agricultural products will solve the problems that result from increasing urbanization, which might include food shortage but certainly could include many more things such as air pollution and rising crime rate.
Support for #18 is most evident in lines 16 and 17: 'gravitational force necessary to make the huge structures (=galactic structures) cohere.'
#help
All the other answer choices are bad but I still don't think that (A) is necessary for the argument in the stimulus. We just don't know anything about the entire population and how many people support or oppose the tariffs. Majority can be anything from 51 to 100. (A) might be necessary in a 51 oppose v. 49 support situation, but might not be needed in 90 oppose v. 10 support situation because 10 is unlikely to play a decisive role in the outcome of the election. In other words, we need to make unjustified assumptions to make (A) necessary and thus, I don't think this is a good answer choice.
Also, 'significantly'? Such a strong word is certainly not necessary here.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
I don't like this question very much...
I chose (A), but then changed my answer to (B) during BR because during the review, it made more sense to think that urban pollution does not equal major cities' pollution. After all, pollution in small to medium-sized cities are urban pollution too. Even if San Francisco and Los Angeles are free of pollution, if Santa Barbara and Monterey are polluted, CA would have an urban pollution probelm, right?
I see how B is not a stronger counter than A, but still I think both answer choices are not good enough.
Mistakenly commented. How can I delete this? Sorry...
(A) was a tricky answer because changing only one word could make it a correct answer. To make it flawed, last sentence would have to say something like at least one of them must have an accurate method.
Method I
To understand why D is wrong, it might help to consider which elements in the stimulus correspond to those in the answer choices.
Stimulus: Wealth(A), Good thing(B), Harm(C)
B -> /C
A ->often C
----------------------------
A -> /B
AC (A): Alex(A), Chess Club member(B), Loving golf(C)
A -> C
B -> /C
----------------------------
A -> /B
AC (D): Sarah's dog(A), Dachshund(B), hunting well(C)
A -> C
B ->most /C
-------------------------------
A -> /B
There are two premises in stimulus that support the conclusion and the most indicator is used in different premises. In the stimulus, most indicator doesn't affect the argument because the frequency of wealth being harmful to people has no effect on whether it being harmful or not. Even if it is very rarely harmful, it is not good as long as it was harmful at least once.
However, in AC (D), there's still a possibility that some dachshunds hunt very well and that Sarah's dog falls under this category because all it says is that most dachshunds hunt poorly, not all dachshunds hunt poorly.
Method II
Another way, easier one I think, is to check whether the arguments are valid.
For this question, it is useful to recognize that most statements don't have contrapositives . B ->most /C does not equal C ->most /B. Thus, answer choice (D) is flawed, whereas the arguments in the stimulus and AC (A) are sound.
Please correct me if there's any flaw in my reasoning.
Thank you for reading!
#help I crossed E out due to the following reason. What do you guys think?
Isn't E wrong simply because the case of clairvoyance is not a case of reliable process, not knowledge? I mean knowledge and a reliable process are two different things as demonstrated in the first line in the stimulus. The stimulus also says that the power of clairvoyance is not a reliable process. Thus, E, which says that the stimulus demonstrates that the case of clairvoyance is not a knowledge, is wrong because stimulus actually demonstrates that the case of clairvoyance is not a reliable process.