Hey there! The conclusion here is "This shows that the programs are successful and should be expanded." What you should be attacking is the premises, you have to weaken the support for the argument. Make us doubt that "the programs are successful". The "should be expanded" goes hand in hand with the program being successful.

Hey there! For question #1 see below.

Because (indicator for premise) the decomposition is slower in cool climates, (no indicator for conclusion except the comma) the technique can be used to obtain accurate dates for sites almost a million years old in cooler regions.

The first part of the sentence (premise) is supporting the second (conclusion). Why should we believe the technique can be used to obtain accurate dates for sites almost a million years old in cooler region? because the decomposition is slower in cool climates. The first sentence is context for the argument. Hope this helps!

Economist: Currently the interest rates that banks pay to borrow are higher than the interest rates that they can receive for loans to large, financially strong companies. Banks will not currently lend to companies that are not financially strong, and total lending by banks to small and medium-sized companies is less than it was five years ago. So total bank lending to companies is less than it was five years ago.

The economist’s conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

Subjects introduced: What do we know about each?

1. large, financially strong companies – the interest rates that banks pay to borrow are higher than the interest rates that they can receive

2. companies that are not financially strong – the bank does not lend to them

3. small and medium-sized companies – the total lending for THESE companies is less than it was five years ago.

So, because total lending by banks to small and medium-sized companies is less than it was five years ago, TOTAL bank lending is less than five years ago?

Not so fast. Do small and medium sized companies equal all companies?

What about the large financially strong companies that was introduced first? the interest rates that banks pay to borrow are higher than the interest rates that they can receive... But does that mean they do not lend them money? We actually do not know, as we are not told. We are just told that banks lose money when they do.

In order for the conclusion to follow, we must prove that TOTAL bank lending is down. By using the information, we have about large financially strong companies and considering AC(A) we can add the premise that Banks do not lend money to large financially strong companies. So now that ALL parties have been considered, yes TOTAL bank lending is down.

I had to use both 7Sage and LSAT demon explanations to truly understand this question. I made this explanation using what I was able to use to understand this question. Hope it helps!

Hey there! It would have been correct if it said something like sky diving is not dangerous because the number of people skydiving has increased meanwhile injuries have decreased.

For Question 11, I went into the AC with the Main Point in mind that the method of eye closure was the ideal method over cognitive interview. The passage describes witness recall as equivalent but then precedes to showcasing eye closure as the better method (no greater complexity) could someone please explain why we should have seen eye closure as a subset and their equivalency?

I got #13 wrong. I knew the author supported the Legal scholars' proposal but the sentence of "Such alternative narratives can SHATTER the complacency of the legal establishment and DISTURB its tranquility" right before the conclusion made me second guess myself. I believe this sentence is what led to B being the 2nd most chosen answer. Could someone please provide some advice on how we should have approached the closing sentences?

I confused the cause of an effect to be considered necessary. Basically the argument of the "bulging or slipped disks cannot cause serious back pain in people who do experience back pain" meant they were not necessary. Could someone pleased provide more insight to this?

Add "It is not the case that Two pieces of paper of exactly the same color will have the same effect in a given context, even if they are of different textures."

Hey there! I suggest reading the stimulus and automatically beginning to look for the assumptions made by the author. The sufficient assumption training helped me mentally mark the premises and conclusion and identify the missing gap. I been getting nearly all the questions right based on identifying the missing gap before even reading the answer choices. Once I get to the answer choices I have an idea of what I might see. Once you're there it's all about eliminating! Focus on the argument, I eliminated many because I felt like it was irrelevant to the stimulus (talking about another subset that's not mentioned in the argument). Also once I'm down to 2 options I use the negate test. The negate test might be easier for you if you take your time to draw out the premise to conclusion bridge.

Hey there! I believe that is true with building a P->C bridge. However, this question involves triggering a sufficient condition. First focus on the rule "It is rational not to acquire such information UNLESS one expects that the benefits of doing so WILL outweigh the cost and difficulty of doing so. Make sure you translate the Unless (Negate sufficient). The rule is now IF one does NOT expect the benefits of doing so ... etc. Answer choice E triggers the sufficient condition which results in It is rational to not acquire such information. Thats exactly what we needed to justify the conclusion, we must prove the consumers are behaving rationally. Hope this helps!

Hey there! When the argument provides a conditional conclusion, it is arguing IF a then B. What this means is the argument only applies IF a is true. Therefore, you can make the sufficient condition "IF a" into a premise, make A true. In this case, it was "IF acquiring money sacrifices health THEN one should not acquire money. You can make your first premise, which would be "Acquiring money sacrifices health". It is good to remember that if it was not true the argument would not follow. You must grant the author's sufficient condition in order for the argument to apply. This is specific to conclusions that have conditional statements. Hope this helps!

I was making the same mistake when I started PSA questions. Anwer Choice D has sufficiency-necessity fallacy. Try to remember P -> C. In Answer Choice D the premise "express a worldview" was drawn as the necessary condition (Conclusion). Instead the Necessary condition must match the conclusion the argument is drawing which is "Photographs are interpretations of reality".

Answer Choice B (The Correct Answer has the premise as a sufficient and the conclusion as necessary. Which is correct.

Refer back to PSA questions and focus on the review of wrong answers (Recurring Defects) in the examples. If you are still have trouble maybe review Formal Logic Flaws (Confusing Suffiency for Necesscity) Hope this helps.