For 27, I originally got this wrong, but after redoing the passage I see why B has to be the right answer. Doing this for my own practice, but hopefully others can benefit from this later.

In the third paragraph, we are told that FMRIs show different rates of oxygen in different parts of the brain. HOWEVER, they are interpreted as measures of activity. What the author is saying that people falsely see different rates of oxygen as different measures of activity.

So basically, just because there is a different rate of something does not measure anything for us. You should look for an AC that exemplifies this idea.

I originally picked A; this is wrong because it does not show a different rate as a measure of something. A says that a different rate was necessary for a success; not that it was a measure of the popularity. I think JY is trying to say that just because a part of an entity is different does not make the whole entity different. This scenario is making a direct and likely accurate assessment based on the election results. If the district's large margin was essential to the mayor's overall victory (because the margins in other districts were smaller or even unfavorable), then it is reasonable to conclude that the mayor's victory depended on that district. The rate (large margin) in this context does measure something concrete and directly related to the outcome (the mayor’s overall victory). HOWEVER, WE WANT SOMETHING THAT SHOWS THAT THE RATE IS NOT A MEASUREMENT.

B is the closest to this concept. A store notices that there was an increase of shoppers in the summer and nowhere else, and assumes that only those who came in the summer were impacted. However, like what the passage says about FMRIs, just because you have a difference in something does not imply anything.

I suck at explaining this, so think of it like an LR flaw:

Imagine a city launched a yearlong public health campaign to encourage people to exercise more regularly. At the end of the year, they noticed that gym attendance significantly increased during January and February, but then returned to normal levels for the rest of the year.

The city officials concluded that the campaign only motivated people during January and February. However, this conclusion might be flawed because:

Other Factors: January and February are traditionally times when people make New Year's resolutions to get fit, which could naturally lead to higher gym attendance regardless of the campaign.

Seasonal Variations: The winter months may lead people to seek indoor activities like going to the gym, rather than outdoor exercise.

In this example, focusing solely on the increased gym attendance during January and February, without considering other factors, might lead to the incorrect assumption that the campaign only had an impact during those months. The rate of gym attendance doesn’t fully capture the broader effects of the campaign or account for other variables at play.

Came here to say that I started learning formal logic back in January when I first started studying, and it was confusing at first. Now in September, I can get these super quickly. Just a sign that things will get better!

This section spit on me and called me stupid. I did this RC passage a month ago and went -4, and just did it again, and went -3, but on different questions lmao.

Let's goooo. C is right because it directly shows how the mild winter caused a larger population. If the birds are more vulnerable by feeders, the mild winter prevented them from being eaten, causing the population to be larger than usual. A is wrong because just because a winter was mild does not mean it was unusual. That is another assumption the test makers want us to make.

Starting to see how the strengthen / weaken questions are really preying on us making unwarranted assumptions.

I think what makes this question difficult is that it's easy to go autopilot and make assumptions without actually parsing the ACs. I almost picked A, but realized it was wrong when I realized that the stimulus talked about exposure during infancy; and only E speaks to that.

D is the right answer and they want you to glaze over how it says that half of people are given the pill and half are given a fake one, because they want you assume that that equates no change. However, it doesn't resolve anything. That's like saying that 1/2 of a study took a red pill, 1/2 of a study took a blue pill, and claiming that that explains why nobody had any changes by taking the red pill.

personally found this passage much harder than a measly 2/5 lol

how did i go -0 on this and every other passage but for clay tablets i tanked to -4....

Here to tell you that if you're struggling now, it will get better. I first learned SA back in May, and literally went 5/22 on all of these lessons. I just did this over as quick review, and went 21/22 pretty quickly. SA and NA really take time to understand and really comes to just repetition and letting things click when they do. I say this as someone who was sobbing over these concepts a few months ago. Just hang in there, and if you put the work in, you'll start to see how to answer these!

I don't really like how JY explains this, so this was how I approached it. Not sure if this was the right way to go, but hopefully this helps someone else.

NA

Remember: What is the gap in logic, and what does the author have to assume for their argument to be correct?

Conclusion: PEDs should be allowed ONLY if under a doctor’s care so they take them in safe doses. Doing this will get rid of the health risks.

Premise: Banning PEDs from sports won’t stop people using them.

Premise: They provide too big of a competitive advantage.

Premise: Top athletes will do whatever it takes to gain a big competitive advantage.

Wait, when do we talk about safe dosage amounts and health risks? We only talked about how banning PEDs won’t stop people, and people will do whatever it takes to get a competitive advantage. Just because athletes will do whatever it takes to get an advantage and how banning won’t stop doesn’t lead to taking them in safe doses. The author has to assume something to get from the premise to the conclusion, because nothing is explicitly stated or inferred to make this jump.

A.) This is wrong, because it’s irrelevant. We are strictly focused on athletes, and even as a stretch, doctors. Spectators never come up.

B.) This is what I originally picked, but it’s wrong. This doesn’t tell us why the PEDs should only be under a doctor’s orders, and why ensuring safe care is important.

C.) This is wrong because it still doesn’t tell us why they need to be regulated and taken in safe doses. If athletes didn’t take PEDs in cases in which they don’t help, that doesn’t explain to us why the author thinks they have to be in safe doses. If they take them in cases where they do help, they still don’t guarantee that being safe is needed.

D.) This is wrong because we aren’t caring about the doctors themselves; we care about the drugs being taken in safe amounts. It could be taken in front of a judging panel to ensure it’s safe, for all we care.

E.) This is right. The stimulus says that athletes will do whatever they want to get to a big competitive advantage, so they’ll take the PEDs. The author says banning it won’t stop them, because they’ll do anything to get an advantage. If we can’t stop them, we might as well watch them to make sure that they’re not going to die.

Negating this ruins the argument. If PEDs at unsafe levels create a bigger advantage over using them at safe levels, it won’t matter if it’s administered in safe doses; people will prefer to take the unsafe level because they want the advantage.

well I took a one week break after killing it consistently on RC. Did this, and went -4. I literally switched from the right to wrong answers. I guess this is my sign to 1.) Go back on the LSAT horse and get back on track 2.) stop second guessing.

Trying not to take this personally but in absolutely bad spirits.

Conclusion: There is little justification for removing bats in buildings where people work or live.

Premise: Because even though bats carry rabies, they are shy and rarely bite, and a majority of bats don’t have rabies.

Your common sense should kick in here. Just because there’s a small chance of you getting rabies from an animal doesn’t mean that you should still allow the possibility of it to do so. Imagine if you were an AirBnB host, and you thought to yourself “Oh, it’s fine if my AirBnB has bats. They’re shy, and they probably won’t bite.”

If they do bite, you’re in for a real nasty lawsuit.

The author thinks that just because there is a low chance of something happening, that it’s fine and that it won’t happen. But remember, that would so not fly (no pun intended) in real life. Just because there’s a low chance of something happening doesn’t mean that it’s safe.

We look for the AC that best follows this logic.

A.) This is wrong because it’s irrelevant. Just because a rabid bat is more likely to infect others doesn’t do anything to hurt the argument. In fact, I’d argue that it strengthens the argument by showing that it’s much less likely for a rabid bat to attack humans.

B.) At first I had no idea why this was right, but on second review, I get it now. It’s following what I originally rephrased as the right answer; just because there’s a low chance doesn’t mean it won’t happen. If a rabid bat is less mobile, but they’re more aggressive, then they’re not these shy animals that rarely bite like the author is trying to rely on. It’s showing that it doesn’t matter if bats are shy and most don’t carry rabies; it’s the fact that they still can, and when they do, we are screwed.

C.) This is wrong because I think it strengthens the argument. We want to weaken it. If most animals with rabies rarely bite people, it does nothing to show how rabies can still occur and bats are still a hazard.

D.) This is wrong because it’s irrelevant. Just because the bats with the highest chances of giving rabies aren’t there doesn’t mean that bats still aren’t a danger. Bats still have a chance of biting and giving rabies.

E.) This is irrelevant. Who cares if people know if they were bitten by a bat?

Conclusion: Monarch butterflies must have single-celled parasites that create deformities that hurt their flights.

Premise: Because in populations of the butterflies that haven’t migrated, 95% are super infected with parasites. In populations of butterflies that have migrated, 15% are infected with parasites. This shows that migrating allows the butterflies to avoid parasites.

Okay, with flawed reasoning, we need to look at why the premise does not support the conclusion. The first thing I immediately think is correlation does not equate to causation. Just because these populations have higher / lower infection rates doesn’t mean that migrating had any effect on that.

Infection caused them to not migrate. This is inferred by the last sentence, “This shows that migrating allows butterflies to avoid parasites.” So if they’re infected, they are not migrating.

Note: I first made a SA / NA assumption by mapping this out as Migrating -> /infected, but that’s wrong. If they are infected, we know they are not migrating. However, butterflies are not migrating only because they aren’t infected. Maybe they’re migrating just to migrate.

Infected -> /migrating

A = infected, B = /migrating

When we think about flawed causal reasoning, there’s four possibilities, and the author is failing to consider them:

A -> B. What the author thinks. That infection is why they couldn’t migrate.

B -> A. What if the butterflies weren’t able to migrate because they were infected?

C -> A and B. What if there was some third factor? What if the infected population was already deathly ill and that’s what caused them to attract parasites and not migrate? I don’t know, you can be crazy with this one.

D - it was all just one big coincidence. Maybe it was just a huge coincidence that those butterflies who were not infected were able to fly.

So we should look at the ACs that reflect one of these four models.

A.) This is wrong, because you have to jump through leaps and hurdles to defend it. There is a way to justify this in your head, but it’s almost like trying to justify dating a really bad guy to all of your friends; you have to do the most to defend it. Even if monarch butterflies were unable to detect areas that are free from parasites, it doesn’t show us how migration didn’t help protect the butterflies. This AC is trying to get us to assume that this follows C -> A and B, but it doesn’t. It’s not relevant to the AC because we don’t care about whether they were able to detect where there were parasites or not. It doesn’t tell us anything about migration.

B.) This is wrong because it’s irrelevant. We don’t care about if the migrations are longer or shorter; we care about migrations, period. The author says that migration is what protects the butterflies, and we aren’t concerned with the timespan or length of it.

C.) What I picked. This is wrong because it’s irrelevant to the argument structure. Though this is a flaw that targets the assumption that 95% and 15% could equate two total different numbers and it would break the argument, it’s not at the core of what the author is arguing. The author is saying that migrating protected the butterflies, so we need to find something that shows that that’s wrong. Whether the percentages are right or not doesn’t help us do that.

D.) Yeah, this is following the causal forms I wrote out earlier. This actually directly follows B -> A.

E.) This is wrong because it’s irrelevant. We’re caring about infection and parasites; not about food supply.

Not sure why I found this question so hard during my PT, but here's my huge drawn out explanation to help anyone else out there.

The economist says that there has been a large decline in employment around the globe, so it’s not surprising that the number of workers injured on the job has decreased. What’s weird is that the percentage of numbers who are getting injured is decreasing.

So as the number of people on the job goes down, the number of workers getting injured on the job goes down with it. Okay, yeah, that makes sense to me. If there’s less people in the field, there’s going to be less people getting hurt.

If the number of people on the job goes down, then there’s going to be less people who will get injured. For example, if there are 100 people on the job, and there is a 10% chance of them getting hurt, then 10 people are likely to get injured. However, if there are 50 people on the job, and there’s still a 10% chance of them getting hurt, then now only 5 people are likely to get injured. Just because the number of workers goes down doesn’t mean that the chance of getting hurt goes down. The risk of people getting hurt is determined by the working conditions themselves, and is not dependent on how many workers there are.

This is just the model for thinking, because percentages and numbers aren’t equal to each other. Equating them is failing to consider the overall group sizes (like the example I gave about 100 vs. 50 people on the job. 10% for a group of 100 is not the same as 10% for a group of 50). In the real world, it is absolutely possible that the working conditions can influence the risk conditions - like if something is too dangerous because it’s too crowded, the risk can absolutely be lowered with less people on the job.

Anyways, we’re getting too deep in our heads. The question WANTS us to think it’s weird that the chances of people getting hurt on the job is getting lower as less people are working, because in most scenarios, that is weird. In most scenarios, the work conditions are independent from the people working the job.

We need to look at the ACs, and look for the ACs that help explain why the percentage is going down (like overcrowdedness influencing the risk chances), and eliminate the one that doesn’t explain it correctly.

A.) This could be a possibility. What if the working conditions being dangerous is dependent on workers getting exhausted and being clumsy? If they worked fewer hours and there’s less people, they’d be more sharp on the job, and the chances of getting hurt would be lower further because there’s less people to get exhausted. So they would be more careful with whatever they’re doing, and there’d be less people to get hurt.

For example, think of workers who are sleep deprived and exhausted. When you’re sleep deprived / exhausted, you’re more likely to make mistakes. So if you work less, you’re less exhausted / sleep deprived, and the risk of being hurt lowers. Further, there’s less of you to accidentally get hurt even if you’re still exhausted / sleep deprived.

B.) This could be a possibility If there’s a decrease for products, and workers are less pressured, maybe they’re not making mistakes in order to meet those demands. Those mistakes could get you hurt because you’re rushing. If that pressure is taken off your shoulders, you can be more intentional and make sure you don’t get hurt on the job. That would make the percentage of workers injured also decrease because then the working conditions are less dangerous.

C.) This could be a possibility. The stimulus talks about how there’s a decline in employees around the globe, but maybe it’s all concentrated in the most dangerous industries. If you have less people working in the dangerous conditions, then the overall percentage for workers worldwide getting hurt lowers.

For example, think of the mining, oil rigging, and lobster industries. These are all super dangerous jobs where people can get hurt on the job because of the work conditions. If fewer people work in these industries, it would change the chances of people getting hurt worldwide by getting rid of the most dangerous conditions.

D.) This is not a possibility. Just because there’s a general decline in resources dedicated to workplace safety doesn’t influence the dangerous conditions at all. This answer choice wants you to make a false assumption into thinking that workers having these resources would help them figure out the working conditions better and then lower the risk of them getting hurt. Though that might be true, it’s still not a foolproof and sure way of lowering the risk of people getting hurt, the way the rest of the answer choices are.

E.) This is a possibility. If the inexperienced workers are the ones getting cut from their jobs, then they could be contributing to the risk of people getting hurt because they’re the ones who are getting hurt. By taking them out of the percentage, the risk of getting hurt lowers.

I did end up picking the right answer at the end, but I was hesitant to pick B because I thought that it did not show explicitly why the birds were picking boxes over the woody forests; it was just showing why the birds were not picking the woody forests. I was tempted with C, but didn't see how the behavior would stop intruding birds. Also was hesitant to pick C because I didn't think of intruding birds as the predators in question.

I guess I need to be more flexible in my thinking; an answer does not have to explicitly show why someone is doing something, but can also tell you why they aren't doing something.

Got this right when timed, but got this wrong on BR.

I think what made this question hard for me was that I didn't think any of the ACs were good, so I was trying to make all of them work.

I realize now why C is right. I'm summarizing what another commenter has already written, but basically, C is an implicit way of saying that there is another thing that is hurting the oysters that is not TBT. If the species that benefits from the oysters dying is also being hurt, that means there is something in the water that is still bad.

What makes C difficult is that your instinctive reasoning is that it's irrelevant because we don't care about other species that aren't the native ones. But you need to think about the second half; if the oyster species that harm the native ones are also suffering, there's something else that probably killed the native ones too.

TBH, not too mad about missing this one. Can't believe it's only a medium level question, though.

Oof. During my PT, I got this right, and on BR, I got this wrong.

I was stuck between B and D but later picked D, thinking that it showed more clearly how less strokes on the right side would be diagnosed if doctors were only aware of strokes based on what they knew about the left side.

However, I realize that B is the right answer because just because the symptoms are different does not mean that the right side strokes would be diagnosed less. That was me working under the assumption that the number of strokes on both sides were the same already; which is what B states.

Basically, I need to be careful when it comes to assuming things that aren't warranted. I thought that B wasn't strong enough to show why the right side strokes wouldn't be caught as much; but B does show how if most are diagnosed in the left, then some of the right side would be left out. D brings in new information that goes too far beyond what the stimulus gives us.

I did this part of a drill practice set, and immediately got humbled. Probably because my formal logic was not the strongest; every question that I got wrong was a parallel reasoning. Yikes.

anyways, I did get the general idea of this question at the beginning. I think that I got this question wrong was because I didn't realize that this was a whole subset that we were working with.

If [Work of art -> evoke IF and sWork of art], then sWork of art -> evoke IF

/Evoke -> /work of art OR /sWork of art

A is wrong because it doesn't follow this same skeletal structure of the stimulus. A reads out as

If [class -> cancelled and bClass], then bClass -> cancelled, but tries to say /bClass -> /cancelled. This is one of the first things we learned with formal logic; this is invalid. It would only be valid to say /cancelled -> /bClass.

I got this question wrong on a PT about two months ago but I just did it blind and got it right.

I think what makes this question difficult is that we think our goal is to show how this cannot be a speaking staff; however, we want to show how the artifact cannot be a COMMUNAL OBJECT. Saying it's a mace doesn't show how it's not a communal object, but if communal objects are meant to be passed around, then they wouldn't be buried in a tomb.

Stimulus: The argument assumes that just because there's more citations given out during the school year than when school is not in session, then they must give out most citations to students. But who is to say that the students are the ones getting them? What if it's the professors? Argument assumes that one subset is responsible for the entire set of people present for the school year.

A - Cross out. We never talk about proportions.

B - Cross out. We don't compare two different populations / types of things. Stimulus compares the presence vs. absence of students.

C - Cross out. No set vs. superset.

D - Cross out. We don't have multiple options to pick from in the stimulus. Also, we aren't comparing multiple things vs. multiple things.

E - Yeah. This assumes that all of the snacks parents give out are to kids. But what if it's been given to other parents?

This is the sexiest question type of the entire section.

Yeah, I'm lost. Can someone explain this in a different way than JY? I just don't get this one.

Somehow got 8/8 on this passage but barely; my reasoning for 19, 20, and 21.

19. messed with me because I didn't see how C or D were ever mentioned, and was scared that A was a stretch. However, I realized that the author explains how physicists can monitor radiation by using soot or whatever so they know what is the radiation from the object and what's not from it. I realized that if they have to use soot to be confident, then it must be difficult without it.

I didn't see C or D at all in the second paragraph because it never discussed temperature. I think this is hinging on us assuming that because the second paragraph is talking about THERMAL radiation, there would be temperature involved somehow.

20. was stuck between A and E. I picked E because I realized there was never some strong admiration from the author. Furthermore, the author never calls Planck's reasoning "intuitive."

21. Picked D, almost went to E. D is right because Planck is not told to contribute to CLASSICAL wave theory; he contributes to the theories we use now. I was really nervous on this question, but I realize that E is absolutely answered in the last paragraph, where it states that Einstein came up with a theory after the other scientists found what happens with metal surfaces. This is difficult because it's never explicitly stated as an experiment.

missed 27 and 28 bc i entirely forgot the sentence ab academics lmfao what an L

This passage spit on me and called me stupid. Can anyone explain why 18. is D? I thought that the biological concept states that a species can be defined as a group that is isolated from those in the wild and don't interbreed. So how would D be right, by saying two populations should be classified because they interbreed when they're different? I also thought that the lumpers use biological concepts to say that similar species should be together. D says how the two species are different.

I do get the subtle definition of what it means to lump things together, but I just don't get how that's strong enough to go against what the text said.

Also, if someone can explain 21 better, I'd appreciate it.