Could this perhaps also be considered a part to whole flaw, in that the argument takes a flaw in the studies (part) to be a flaw in the entirety of the evidence/the treatment (whole)?

@180-baby I had the same issue. B read as the most accurate of all choices, but the "reactions most commonly displayed" seemed inaccurate, and not referring to rejecting low-ball offers.

Hello! I’m coming across this several years later. I’m wondering if you’d be willing to share what ended up happening with you (if you see this). It'd be greatly helpful for me as I am navigating similar difficulties. Thanks so much!

@RuteAyalew So they can write an LSAT question about it, obviously...

I wonder if (B) is not the correct answer also because it merely lists one possible way in which the polls have no substantial effect on elections, and this alone cannot negate or weaken all three other reasons in the argument for why polls negatively effect elections, and hence call for ban on their publication.

Also, B does not specify when to ban the polls, as in not "during the week prior to an elections," but makes a more general statement instead. Could this be another fault? #Feedback

I believe answer choice (C) preys on those who might assume that "most consumer would not care" in the application is NOT equivalent to most consumers "are not upset," in the principle and hence erroneously concluding that the application is flawed for using a value judgement (not caring) different from the principle (not upset).

As JY states in the explanation video, the assumption of "not care" = "not upset" is an implicit one the test taker needs to deduce, and I see it as sort of a hurdle that must be surpassed in order to see the other flaw.

@michellevmallari873 seeing this a few months later - but thank you for the response!

@v_v613 I’m glad. Stay strong.

My advice is to just put your head down and keep going. It is about reaching the potential that you believe you have. It isn't about all the other scores. I don't know if you should cancel or not (my hunch is not), but honestly, shut out the noise, and keep working. Otherwise, it is too demoralizing - so many entry points for negative thinking.

In question 18, the correct answer states that both authors agree that:

• lack of judicial candor "could conceivably have positive benefits under certain circumstances"

While in question 20, the correct answer states that the authors would disagree (they do not both believe) that:

• "judicial candor is an obligation that can be overruled in certain circumstances"

It feels like these two answers are contradictory, and I am trying to parse out why they are not.

I don't see how Auth A agrees that lack of judicial candor could conceivably have positive effects. My sense is that at best Author A's opinion about this is unstated. It only presents other people's argument about this, and don't we always have to differentiate between (and no conflate) author's and other ppl's arg?

I'd appreciate any insight on this. #Help #Feedback

I found that rephrasing the question helped me streamline what to look for. So instead of the convoluted way it is asked, I thought: which of the following principles is consistent with the newspaper's behaviour?

Not sure if this is correct, but felt easier to sort through answers this way.

That "too" in the last sentence has more power than it should....It made (B) more appealing to me during BR, as though the author is implying that the proponents are also at fault for the very thing they critique.

Of course, reading closely and focusing on the actual content of what is being said shows that this is not the case.

That "too" in the last sentence has more power than it should....It made (B) more appealing to me during BR, as though the author is implying that the proponents are also at fault for the very thing they critique.

Of course, reading closely and focusing on the actual content of what is being said, shows that this is not the case.

I found Q11 very challenging. I eliminated (D) because I assumed it is going further than what the author has claimed. The answer seems to be playing on two clauses from the final sentence:

(1) "Because knowledge of genre is acquired,..."; and

(2) it is advisable "to first consider how viewers process cinematic images and eventually come to accept them as conventions before generalizing...."

I focused on (2) when answering Q11, thinking that the author does not go as far as so say HOW audiences come to view images as conventions, but merely advises that scholars like Bordwell ought to consider this "how". In the video JY refers to sentence (1) as perhaps the giveaway to why (D) is correct, but is it fair to assume that "knowledge of genre is acquired" warrants an assumption that the author would agree that "audiences learn to accept cinematic conventions PRIMARILY through repeated exposure"? It feels like a far jump... it seems like the author does not know HOW the audience acquire these conventions.

I did not like any of the answers, exactly as JY stated, and ended up thinking perhaps (B) is correct (though I also see why it is NOT), but any #help or #feedback from a tutor on how to understand this would be very appreciated. Questions like this drain my time and are super discouraging.

I struggled to understand why (B) is wrong, so I broke it down for myself this way, and sharing in case helpful for anyone else:

The crux of this argument is: The author concludes that it is not true that CEOs BEHAVE a certain way BASED on a poll of claim made by CEOs.

Premise/Support: Stats about claim made by CEO

Conclusion: About behavior of CEOs

(i.e. Author assumes that claims made by CEO warrants/allows a conclusion about CEOs behavior).

Answer choice (B) states that "one is not indifferent" while the conclusion is about "behaving indifferently." I think the key here is that to BE indifferent and to BEHAVE indifferently are two different concepts.

Answer choice (D) picks up on this and says: Just because the poll shows that CEOs make a certain claim does NOT mean that this claim is reflected in their behavior. As Kevin says in video: there is such a thing as lying...

@mar765 That is: the crux of the argument is the analogy being made, rather than the content of working exceptionally long hours = not good. 

This is what helped me distinguish (C) from (A).

I think (A) hits at the analogy being made by the argument. I read it as essentially saying that there isn't something special or particular to resident physicians that controllers and operators do not have, which, had it existed, the analogy could not be drawn out.

@Lowri Thomas Ah, thank you very much for taking the time to explain. This is very helpful.

Just imported several PTs. This feature is great - it updated all my stats and areas of weakness. Thank you so much for making this possible!

Did anyone else infer the wrong author position/tone while doing this passage?

For some reason, I read this twice, and still completely missed the mark that the author is presenting evidence against Temple's causation hypothesis, and read it as an attempt to advocate for, or at the very least present, T's attempts to prove the hypothesis. This made me miss the mark on so many of the questions - unusual for me.

I read the counter examples as mere critiques/counters to Temple's hypothesis, and, for some reason, did not catch on to the author presenting them as attempts to show the unlikelihood of T's hypothesis.

Would love a tutor's #help with or #feedback on this!

@Max Thompson Thank you for the explanation. I am still struggling with E, though.

Specifically, I do not understand why it is "less likely that there can be public figures with good reputations"? If libel laws makes it difficult for people to say bad things about public figures, then their reputation is protected. Why then does bad reputation become a necessary reality?

I am not grasping the trade off between bad and good reputation that E is trying to establish ..

I read (B) to be saying what (A) is saying, but for some reason, when I read (A) it didn't hit me that it was saying what it is saying. I chose (B) immediately because it hit at the gap I sensed when I read the stimulus. A lesson on importance of articulating the gap we "sense" when doing difficult flaw questions. It matters.

This question and comments on it made me reflect on answer choices for difficult weaken questions.

It seems that when evaluating answer choices for such questions we should first ask that if we were to assume that the statement made by the answer choice must be true, does it become powerful enough to weaken the argument or shake up the relationship between the premises and conclusion? Perhaps this way, we can turn attention to how strong or weak the statement being made is, and hence, its potential to disrupt the relationship btwn premise and conclusion.

(similar to how in Must Be True q's, we eliminate and do not choose a "could be true" answer.)

For this Q, for example, if we take answer (D) at face value and say it must be true, then it affects the argument more than (C), because C is about common/uncommon customs, while D is about violating etiquette (not merely doing something different from common etiquette).

I don't know if this works, but I am trying to make sense of these odd questions, because otherwise I will sccumb to cynical surrender.

Thank you!

I mean answer choice B is not great at all, but D just seems to introduce way too many outside assumptions, even for a PSA question. I was so surprised that it was the right answer.

Nowhere in the stimulus do we have any hint about Traintrack having ordinary food because its location does not necessitate that it improve its food quality. Maybe no matter where it is located it simply cannot improve its food quality and this is the best that it can do and the fact of its location is mere coincidence. and Marva’s is exceptional not because it needs to compensate for its location, but because it simply has the best chefs in the country.

I could not have made all these connections during times test. #Feedback