Eating ice cream should be banned. Eating ice cream causes brain freeze and makes you gain weight.

Skimmed over "most" in the stimulus. :/

MOST people did not come across the bacteria, but that does not mean that SOME of them did. AC E addresses the fact that SOME of the people, who contracted the disease, ate the particular seafood dish.

Note to self: pay attention to "most" and "some" statements in the stimulus.

Did not negate the answer choice I thought it was. Had I done the negation test, I would’ve seen that the negated assumption does not destroy the argument, and is thus not a necessary assumption. Also, think: what MUST be true? Bridge or block? – this was a blocking type NA. It is necessary to protect the argument by assuming something that will block the argument from being destroyed.

Remember: if the right answer choice is negated, it will destroy the argument. Also, the right answer MUST be true in order for the argument to be true.

The argument in simple terms: Some scientists made a test that can accurately diagnose autism in children as young as 18 months old. In a study of 18,000, they correctly diagnosed 10 children and wrongly diagnosed 2. Therefore, autistic children can now benefit from treatment much earlier in life.

The necessary assumption is that a diagnostic test that can sometimes falsely give a positive diagnosis (such as the one in the argument) can still provide a reasonable basis for treatment decisions. This HAS to be true. It’s NECESSARY. If this was not true, then it would mean that falsely diagnosing children would make the test bad. If the test is bad, then the conclusion falls apart. We NEED the assumption to be true that despite some inaccurate tests, autistic children can still benefit from these tests.

This argument concludes a sufficient cause as a necessary cause.

The argument goes from talking about weapons preceding war and concluding that arms control is the way to preserve peace.

Weapons → major war A → B

/weapons → /major war /A → /B

This is a classic invalid argument.

Answer choice A points this out! It shows that one thing sufficient enough to cause something else is not NECESSARY to cause something else.

Mapping out the original argument in simple terms has helped me out tremendously in these parallel questions.

As I read the argument, I just wrote out

A ->B

B

A

Viewing the argument like this makes it way easier to connect it with the arguments in the answer choices. Also, another key thing to pay attention to is the wording used in the answer choices as opposed to the argument. For example, if the original argument is talking about probability and an answer choice is talking about certainty, eliminate it right away. Subtle differences sometimes make a huge difference, but if you guys map out the argument in simple A, B, C terms then it becomes much easier to parallel it with the answer choices.

Last week I was seriously struggling with these question types! now they're a piece of cake and actually kinda fun to do now!

Ahh thank god for conditional logic

I thought that it was D, some drivers would also violate higher speeding laws. However, this clearly does not weaken the argument. It actually may even support it by adding extra context. The author's conclusion is that increasing highway speed would be unsafe. So yeah, we get it, more speed, more unsafe. If some people violate even an increase in highway speed laws, then perhaps it would be even more unsafe for them! this doesn't weaken the argument at all, I guess it would just add extra context to the author's argument. B destroys the argument because it shows that uniformity in speed is actually more safe than everyone driving at different speeds.

If anyone would like to comment and let me know if my reasoning here is correct I would highly appreciate that :)

The argument in simple terms: People say that highway speed limits should reflect the actual average highway speed of drivers. But increasing speed is unsafe because people that violate speed limits will continue to drive fast and those who don’t violate speed limits will increase their speed.

The way to weaken this argument would be to attack the support of the conclusion. The support is that increasing highway speed will decrease safety. The correct answer choice, B, attacks this support. B claims that uniformity in driving speed (ex: everyone driving 40 mph) is more important for highway safety than is a low average driving speed. Everyone driving the same speed will actually improve highway safety than some people driving faster than others. B attacks the support.

Ugh I didn't identify the disconnect between the premise and conclusion.

The argument in simple terms: People most likely to watch a televised debate are strong supporters of an electorate already and have their minds made up as to who they will vote for. Other people who watch televised debates are uncommitted viewers and are undecided as to who won the debate. The conclusion is that televised debates do little to bolster people’s chances of winning an election.

The disconnection here is that these premises do not support the conclusion. What do televised debates have to do with not winning an election? The right answer choice will identify the point that the arguer forgot to mention. Answer B, the voting behavior of people who do not watch a televised debate is influenced by reports about the debate, identifies a point that the arguer did not mention – the people who do NOT watch a debate but may still be influenced by the debate due to media coverage. This unmentioned point is critical to the argument and makes the argument vulnerable to criticism.

Parse out the argument. Eliminate irrelevant answer choices. I overlooked answer choice E, the correct answer, because I thought that “reducing cholesterol levels at home” was irrelevant to the argument. I was looking for an answer that would reference red meat, overlooking that the main idea of the argument was about cholesterol levels, not just meat. A reduction of red meat reducing cholesterol level is the example, not the argument.

In Flaw Descriptive Weakening, the strategy is to either find the fallacy in the argument or to identify the disconnect. In this case, the correct answer, E, identified a disconnect between a reduction in red meat consumption (a subset of a food that increases cholesterol levels) and increasing demand for restaurants specializing in steak. The answer that identifies a flaw between these 2 subjects is the one that can most weaken this argument. E points out that people could still reduce their cholesterol levels by reducing their cholesterol intake at home, while patronizing the steak restaurants perhaps occasionally.

I incorrectly chose C, but this is wrong because this answer does not provide any disconnect in the support of the conclusion. It claims information that does not attack the main point of the argument we are trying to attack.

The strategy for weakening questions is to identify the assumption and then negate it. In this argument, the trick would’ve been to weaken the causal relationship by showing that there could be an alternate cause. "X does not necessarily lead to Y because of Z."

Terry’s response to Robin’s argument is that people will not be able to increase their spending as a means to improve the economy, as Robin claims, because people won’t have money or jobs to spend on things other than basic necessities (like food). The correct answer, C, is the alternate cause that could destroy the relationship between X and Y as I mentioned. Answer choice C is the “Z” that weakens the argument. It gives an alternate premise that destroys his argument. It shows that people will still be able to spend during bad economic times because those who did not lose their jobs were able to save their money. This destroys Terry’s conclusion that people won’t be able to spend without money or jobs. If people have savings, they WILL be able to spend. This is that “Z” answer we're looking for.

ugh I hate this one lol

I glanced over the answer choices without really processing what each one was saying. Also, I overlooked the control group aspect of the argument. Had I read each answer carefully and made a mental note of the control group support, I would’ve noticed that answer choice E references those NOT in the control group and how much more the fact of those not in the control group strengthened the conclusion of the argument.

The argument was regarding a control group of prisoners who consumed a high-nutrient diet and correlated it to a reduction in violent behavior. In order to strengthen this, we must make the evidence more supportive of the conclusion.

The conclusion: high nutrient diet = less violent behavior. Low nutrient diet = more violent behavior. A control group was given a high nutrient diet and resulted in less violent behavior. Answer E strengthens this argument by adding that a portion of the violent inmates NOT in the control group did not show an improvement in behavior when not places on the high nutrient diet. This further proves that the high nutrient diet reduces tendencies of violent behavior.

I chose C, an irrelevant answer. It claims that “many young offenders have reported that they consumed a low nutrient food sometime before the crime.” This is wrong because it doesn’t support or prove the conclusion much. So, they ate a mcchicken before a violent crime. So what? They could’ve also eaten a salad before a violent crime. This is random and doesn’t really support the argument much.

The strategy is to find the conclusion. Never choose an answer that presumes more than the argument states.

This argument requires heavy parsing out.

The argument in simple terms: Better technology will improve food production. However, increased food production requires a centralized society. Historically, a centralized society has an increased chance of its population being wiped out of it perished. Therefore, better technology leading to more food production leading to a centralized society is overall bad for society if it collapses.

The answer choice, B, is most strongly supported by this argument. “Not every problem associated with the collapse of a centralized society would be prevented by tech improvements.” This is true because the argument states that historically a centralized society has greater chances of collapsing. Therefore, it is true that although tech improvements can improve food production, it won’t be able to prevent the collapse of a society.

The argument: V monkeys use different calls to warn each other of nearby predators and the difference in calls depends on whether the danger comes from land or air.

Why could this be? Why the different voice pitches?

Perhaps, they react to predators in different ways and they need different types of calls to know how to react to the danger being called.

The right answer choice, D, explains this! D explains that V monkeys avoid land predators by climbing trees and avoid air predators by diving into foliage. They react differently to different predators – that is why they require different types of alarm calls!

C, the trap answer choice, is wrong because it still does not explain why the V monkeys use 2 different alarm calls. Just because predators can’t attack from both land and air, doesn’t mean anything to the conclusion. If anything, it practically restates the argument. Remember, in RRE, we are looking for the answer that can explain the argument further. We are looking for something the arguer “forgot” to mention.

The argument: 2 things are true of ALL immoral actions: 1- if performed in public, they offend people and 2- they are accompanied by feelings of guilt.

We are looking for what CANNOT be true (must be false)

Answer choice A: Some immoral actions (that are not performed in public) are not accompanied by feelings of guilt.

The statement in parenthesis is a modifier. IGNORE IT. This cannot be true, no matter where it is performed (in public or not). ‘Some” is a subset of all. If some immoral actions are NOT accompanied by feelings of guilt, this CANNOT be true, because according to the argument, ALL immoral actions are accompanied by feelings of guilt. Some is a subset of all!

.

160 is my goal score! I know your aim is much higher than that, but I hope you find some satisfaction and pride in knowing that your lowest score is some people's goal score. You should feel proud regardless of what you end up getting on the real LSAT next week. I know it's not what you aim to get, but its still a score that you should be proud of regardless. This test isn't meant to be easy... the career isn't mean for everyone. We should feel proud to have even made it this far, despite whatever we get on the LSAT. Take a break from studying, relax, and find things to be grateful for. Your career is only a portion of your life. Your health, friends, family, and happiness make up another significant portion of it - be grateful for whatever else you have! be proud! It's all going to be okay friend :)

If anyone could please critique my reasoning: #help

Find the flaw in the argument.: "Most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that..."

The argument is saying that there has been a link between good health and high education levels. The argument concludes that good health is due to making informed lifestyle choices (for being highly educated).

(Need to find the flaw in this reasoning.)

CORRELATION/CAUSATION.

My notes state: Correlation DOES NOT imply causation. Just because A and B are correlated, doesn't mean that one caused the other. Causation DOES cause correlation.

Answer choice D is right because it answers the correlation/causation flaw. Just because there is a correlation between having good health and being highly educated, does not mean that it is the cause that people with good health can make informed lifestyle decisions. Other sources could also contribute to making informed lifestyle decisions. Being educated is not the only cause of good health. The argument does overlook the possibility that there may be an exterior cause that contributes to both education levels and having good health.

Kinda mad I got this wrong. Note to self: read ALL answer choices!!

That awkward moment when the conclusion is for once not followed by "thus" lol

I have the same issue!

Interested!

Having the same issue! I was originally planning on taking it in July, now I'm thinking August would be better for me although I really don't want to delay my applications either. I also started studying with 7sage in January. PM me if you wanna talk!

Always try to match the structure of the arguments in parallel questions, but also, don't forget to look out for certainty and possibility words in the arguments.