For Q16, I actually doubt that the author would agree that comedians would be more likely to protect their material through copyright law if they had assurances of legal success because legal success does not guarantee the recoupment of costs — and the author directly states that in the end it's the cost-effectiveness that is the deterrent. For AC B to be correct, it would have to state that comedians would be more likely to protect their material through copyright law if they had assurances that the costs incurred would be recouped. And it does not state that. Therefore, I think AC B is not correct.
Meh. Really crappy stimulus question. If a customer "dislikes" a business that's bad for business. And if alienating a customer causes the customer to dislike a business, then that's clearly bad for business. This is "precisely" what the stimulus points to. Had the question asked what the stimulus "generally" points to then the answer E would be correct because it is a generalization of information provided in the stimulus. This stimulus question is a fail in my opinion.
Question #20
If a law requires deterministic certainty, then "mistrust of uncertainty" as applied to biology = biological laws that are more difficult to determine, or discover. Seems like AC "A" is a far more precise answer choice to me than "nature of the phenomena".
So much for trying to blow through the "easy" first 10 questions to leave enough time for the hard questions towards the end.
19.5% Flaw/Descriptive Weakening
21.7% Flaw/Descriptive Weakening
The more practice questions I take, the less impressed I am with the LSAT writers.
This stimulus question, in my opinion is grossly flawed.
NEVER does the stimulus talk about individual scientists. Let's break it down by each premise:
"Scientists talk about the pursuit of truth." Now how many scientists are we talking about here? Some, many, all? We know from our lessons that "some" could mean as many as 100%. And "many" implies "some". Therefore from the first premise, we are potentially discussing the entire scientific community.
"Accordingly, the professional activities of most scientists are directed towards personal career enhancement ..." Again, from our lessons, if we are talking about "most" scientists, then we are talking about anywhere between 51% to 100% -- potentially the entire scientific community.
Never have we discussed individual scientists. Never has the stimulus distinguished between any individual scientists being represented and other scientists outside of the group being referred to in the stimulus. Every mention of scientists in the stimulus points towards a representation of the scientific community.
So when the stimulus reaches the conclusion, "Hence, the activities of the scientific community ..." it is perfectly consistent with the group of scientists referred to in previous statements.
I'd really like to know how anyone sees individual scientists being mentioned by the stimulus as if they are a group distinct from the scientific community.
While I am getting more satisfied with my accuracy on the drills, I am consistently slower than the target time. I'm wondering if the target time is set at the very most time that should be allotted for the question or if the target time is set to a bit better than it needs to be.
Anyone know?
I now understand the correct answer by simply adding "because" in between the argument's conclusion and the premise that the correct answer provides:
"... planners could solve these problems effectively by trading goods or services produced by a predominantly urban population in order to obtain the agricultural products that were previously produced domestically BECAUSE a scarcity of agricultural products is a central element of many problems created by urbanization."
I will be trying that method in future strengthening questions.
Yikes! I thought the Acme retirement plan was a part of the Economic Merit Prize award package. /facepalm So I glossed over AC D because I assumed having "chosen" the plan was irrelevant. Poor reading comp.
Focus on the support.
Attack the support.
What assumption is the argument making?
Q18 is very strange to me:
Passage A says that copyright law is meant to protect comedians from having their jokes stolen (or copied).
Passage B says that a chef must not copy (or steal) another chef's invention exactly -- a norm that is analogous to patent law.
So I chose AC B - patent law. Seems like the relationship between comedians and copyright law is analogous to chefs and patent law. Both apply directly to intellectual theft.
But instead the LSAT writers are asking what area of law do both comedians and chefs seldom use? Although I can see that such an interpretation of the question is legitimate -- and clearly, based on the correct AC, the correct interpretation -- seems to me not to be the most logical interpretation.