"in order to"

B tricked me up on the grammar. I see it now.

Loved the stimulus but I was between betting on "misanalysis" in A not being a trick (but still thinking that it could be) and "putative" not being a trick in D.

I bet wrong.

No, but it does look like Aeroflot, which has wings and a hammer!

I was going through it so quickly, but I trimmed down to A and B. I chose A ultimately because the wording in B made me suspicious, yet A is wrong because we don't know they misunderstand, so naturally this error should've made me jump over to B strategically. Always good to remember to read, read, read. Poke, poke, poke.

To participate in the statewide race, you must qualify as one of the top 10 winners in your county's race.

Thus, if you are in the top 10, then you will be able to participate in the statewide race.

Makes a lot of sense. A was my prephrase but the "required" part just made it seem like converting in 'intelligence' (I) to 'complex, goal-oriented behavior' (CGB) impossible.

So, B simply says: The motivation for administrating a placebo can have an ethical outcome (justified or unjustified).

I don't know why answer choices get so cloudy to me sometimes. This was so obvious but I glossed over it due to "for doing so."

Same here.

Congrats!

I just did not understand C as a sentence. Well, we are concerned with deep tilling and not tilling (at all), So, C is really saying:

All other forms of tilling [than deep tilling] are not viable options.

Thus, the argument can maintain its binary nature of 'deep' tilling and 'not' tilling as @StudyingInConnecticut pointed out.

Honestly, I gave up on A due to grammar parsing. If I just parsed it as such, I would have picked it:

Residency training does not contain an indispensable aspect which requires resident physicians to work exceptionally long hours.

OR even more clearly (to me)

There ain’t anything in residency training that says doctors gotta work crazy long hours.

My prephrase was something like:

There at least needs to be the possibility of a medicinal substance to be discoverable in the unstudied areas of the tropical forest. If not, then the whole argument's conclusion is impossible to occur.

I did this question twice and now only realized that the first sentence contains the conclusion before for. So we get:

C = convincing

E = expert

AA = Almost Anyone

Premises: C → E

Conclusion AA → E

Our goal to solve this is an answer that says: AA → C which makes the conclusion of AA → E true because of...

AA → C → E

thus

AA → E

And that's what answer choice A does.

D > C because it requires one less reasonable assumption, too. Okay, this makes sense. Thank you.

Very good.

I get it now.

The first part of answer choice A is cancelled out by the second premise, so really what we'd be left with if we chose A is:

Any member of the city council ought either to vote against the proposal or to abstain. But if all the members abstain, the matter will be decided by the city's voters in favor of the proposal. GAP IN ARGUMENT. So at least one member of the city council should vote against the proposal.

Ok, but there is a still a disconnect between the desired voting behavior of the council and that of the voting public. What assumption would make the conclusion absolutely assured, in all its potential behavorial variations and etc? Answer Choice B.

Just for fun, if we combined the condition of A with the sufficient condition of B, we'd get:

Any member of the city council ought either to vote against the proposal or to abstain. But if all the members abstain, the matter will be decided by the city's voters in favor of the proposal. Nevertheless, the proposal should not be decided by the city's voters. So at least one member of the city council should vote against the proposal.

Right? #feedback

I was between B and E.

The stimulus tells us that if most favored and opposed by influential passage THEN no passage.

A and B → /C

C → /A or /B

Passage imples that it doesn't care (/) about passage and it doesn't care (/) about opposition.

The lack or presence of passage or opposition does not mean passage is confirmed.

So E is the safer choice.

#feedback

What about the "if" in "So, if your magazine..."

Wouldn't that preclude E as an option, or am I supposed to take this conditional "if" to "So" as an absolute; that what "if" is conditioning is always true... which makes E the right answer.

So basically the large returns would not be actualized to the same level (at least) if the target city had smaller starting variables. It's kind of like starting investing with $1,000 at 10% return and expecting to get the same return as one investing $1,000,000 with a 10% return. It ain't gonna work out like that.

In "Transition to Strengthen," if an answer causes one alternative hypothesis or essentially, a weakener, to be disproven, that that is our likely correct strengthen answer. This is essentially what E does. I recommend thinking about weakening when reading strengthen stimulus, that way you can start thinking of answer choices that will destroy your weakning presumption.

My eyeballs need to go through an industrial cleaning device.

I guess "since the 1960s" includes the 1970s so I shouldn't have been so quick to discount A.

Story time:

My brain changed the question stem when I was considering both C and D. At first I thought I was doing a properly inferred question and then I realized I was doing a must be false question and then by seeing the congruence between C and D in terms of structure, my brain switched to thinking it was a properly inferred question again and I chose C which is practically a must be true answer.

Okay, quick guide to this question:

The last sentence of the stimulus tells us that this person has never seen someone who is both qualities. So this means he ain't seen one person who is both wise AND intelligent. But he does recognize one person can be one of those qualities at a time.

Read the question stem and realize we're looking for something that MUST BE FALSE. So, that means incorrect answers could be true or consistent with.

A, B, and E are off the table because it is making inferences on the composition of the group. We really only know what one person will be, not these groups mentioned in these three answer choices.

So we're left with C and D. Well, the last sentence of the stimulus and C line up pretty well.

As for D, it is basically saying that ain't nobody wise or intelligent at all. Not one soul is wise. Not one soul is intelligent. That is just not supported by the stimulus at all and in fact it contradicts it. How? Because the essayist has met at least one person who is either wise or intelligent.

Not sure if DeMorgan is needed here. Just make sure you know it's a MUST BE FALSE question.

This is when you know the LSAT is driving you bananas. Myself included.

I thought the answer choice was wrong for a moment, and then I played around with reorganizing the logical language and sorted the least common denominators to the end.

We know these:

effective teachers ‑m→ eccentric

effective teachers → good communicators

/eccentric -s→ effective teachers (we don't use this)

We know that in order to draw valid inferences, we need something that looks like this:

A → B -s→ C

effective teachers → good communicators -s→ eccentric