So I’m having some difficulty eliminating Answer choice A and wondering why my interpretation of it is incorrect.

A says: “The truth of a given description is independent of its emotional vividness.”

I interpreted this to mean, whether a description is true or false is independent of emotional vividness. I remember from both passages that the respective authors thought that telling lies increased emotional vividness, so I thought A was correct by reasoning that if something is untrue then emotional vividness increases. Shakespeare in the first passage and subjectivity in autobiography in the second illustrated this. So I reasoned that truthfulness, as interpreted as being true or false is not independent of emotional vividness, because at least of aspect of truthfulness, being false—increases emotional vividness.

Obviously, this was an incorrect interpretation. Just wondering how I could know that from reading the answer choice, and how I could ascertain the correct one.

Thanks!

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-88-section-3-passage-2-questions/

Hey guys, I had a difficult time eliminating answer choice C on this one. I do understand why A is correct but I can't 100% eliminate C. Explanations I've come across indicate that C just restates what was already stated in the premises, but I still see some slight gaps that C would seem to fill in, so I'm going to take a stab at what I think is going on here, and was hoping I could get some feedback as to whether there's more to add to my explanation or to confirm that it is sufficient. So here it is:

Basically, this is a sufficient/psuedo sufficient assumption question.

The argument is as follows:

Conclusion:

4) What is relevant is not symbolism (not S) but what it directly presents (DP). (R--->not S and DP)

Analysis:

So I see that symbolism is a new term in the conclusion, and I would like to get from R-->not S). I know from "2)" that R-->not E, so I see that adding in not E-->not S would allow the portion of the conclusion, R--->not S to follow via R-->not E-->not S. So that makes sense for A being correct.

However, when I ready the conclusion: "What is really aesthetically relevant, therefore, is not what a painting symbolizes, but what it directly presents to experience," I ignored what was in between the commas and was looking to justify the conclusion, "What is really aesthetically relevant, therefore, is what it directly presents to experience." So I focused on that.

Looking back at the premises, I saw from "1)" that paying attention necessitates intrinsic properties and from "3)" that paying attention also necessitates looking at what is directly presented. But the premises never explicitly connected intrinsic properties to that which is directly presented; it was simply implied.

So going back to the conclusion -- which I qualified thinking that the middle (not S) was extraneous -- I thought that in order to conclude, "What is relevant is what is directly presented (R-->DP), I figured why not make the intrinsic/directly presented connection explicit? So I plugged answer choice C) Relevant-->Intrinsic, leading to (R-->Intrinsic)--->DP.

Where I think I might have gone wrong:

Plugging in Relevant-->Intrinsic still leaves the the original gap between Intrinsic and Directly Presented open. Also, Was answer C already stated in Premise 2) as E-->not R, as the contrapositive of R-->Intrinsic?

The way I was supposed to have thought about it?:

Paying attention leads to looking at only intrinsic properties and paying attention involves only looking at what is directly presented, so there's no leap in concluding that intrinsic properties involve what is directly presented. So it adds nothing to the part of the conclusion that what is Relevant are only instrinsic properties.

However, connecting Relevant to whatever is not symbolic is an open gap that never connected Extrinsic properties to being symbolic and hence answer choice A) making this explicit completely (or almost entirely in the case of this being psuedo-sufficient) bridges the gap.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Admin note: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-28-section-1-question-24/

Hi, conditional reasoning is something I have struggled with and wanted to start drilling to become better at. I was wondering whether anyone has ever compiled a list of questions that utilize conditional reasoning as the method to arrive at the correct answer? If so, would you be willing to share that list? Thank you!

Hi, I was wondering if anyone knows if there are available past recorded webinars and how to access them? I’ve done a search within the forum and see there were numerous webinars, but no links to access them, just the original links to sign up.

Any direction on this would be appreciated. Thanks!