In eliminating B, C, and E you say that by finding the subject of the sentence (which is sentient beings modified by being at least as intelligent as humans) we would be able to eliminate them - in other words, knowing the subject of the answer choice is sufficient to stop caring about them. That makes no logical sense in the regard that the single most important thing in answering these questions (in explicit agreement with 7sage) is to find the conclusion of the argument... in which the subject is sentient beings at least as intelligent as humans.

I disagree that the first sentence is the main conclusion. I believe the last sentence should be the main conclusion as there is not only a conclusion indicator, but using the 'why?' trick. The last sentence reads "Thus, if carbon dioxide is depleted, the earth cools significantly, thereby causing an ice age." Ok, why? Well since carbon dioxide helps retain earth's heat (S3); and vegetation absorbs carbon dioxide effectively depleting the amount of carbon dioxide (S2); and there was an unusually rich vegetation growth before the ice age (S1). In other words, everything builds up to the last sentence in a linear fashion to the main point.

How could the answer possibly be A? I understand that the overall passage is likely trying to persuade the reader to cast their vote, however voting is simply an example/premise to the conclusion. The conclusion is "An act or omission by one person is not right if such an act or omission done by large numbers of people would be socially damaging." The main point contains absolutely nothing about voting. If the conclusion is about voting I could also argue that the conclusion is about theft, since theft was also used as support for large numbers of people doing something causes social damage. Although E is not a perfect answer it's certainly a more logical choice than A.

After watching both explanation videos, I still disagree. I still believe the answer should be A, and while I can't disagree with the empirically true fact that it is in fact E, I struggle to be able to support that answer choice. Using the 'why?' question to find support, the second sentence is very clearly a premise, but so is the third sentence. S1: The line of poetry is misconstrued by evolutionists. Ok, why? S3: In view of the context, the line was clearly referring to the dominant theory at the time; creationist theory. Now I do acknowledge answer choice A is referring to being unable to misconstrue the poem in present times, which is not mentioned in the passage, the main conclusion should still be the first sentence.

How is A the right answer when the very first part of the stimulus contradicts it? A says that the merit a piece of art receives is determined by the amount of pleasure it illicits. However the premise of the passage says a critics view undermines/affirms that power; in other words, it doesn't matter how much you liked the art piece, you will like it more or less depending on the review of an art critic thus rendering the elicitation of pleasure second behind an expert's critique. In which case E presents that, saying how much you enjoy an artwork is actually influenced by the way other people think of it (which strongly supports the premise laid out). Granted E is left rather general but it is an absolutely reasonable assumption to include critics in the 'other people' giving their opinion's on the piece and ultimately influencing your position.

So is A correct because it is a nearly verbatim generalized summary of the stimulus?

For anyone who was confident in answer choice B, can you explain why it wasn't D? Answer choice D sounds like it's a more iron-clad statement and you could make the argument that B supports D.

I don't understand, how can A be correct when nothing in the stimulus is about the considerations of the mosaics and the flooding? It's completely irrelevant to the conclusion.

How often can we expect to see spurious correlations on the LSAT?

I know it's still early in the module, but if formal logic has to do with the absolute validity of an argument, why would causal logic fall under the umbrella of informal logic? Causal logic shows cause and effect, in other words if A is true, B must be true. This appears to be the very idea behind the formal logics valid/invalid nature.

The rule set out by the plaintiff in simple terms would be questioning a defendant without their co-defendant or their co-defendant's counsel being present; in other words just the defendant in question and their lawyer. We also find out that two defendant's share counsel. As it applies to those two, their shared counsel is just as much a given defendant's counsel and simultaneously another defendant's counsel. Which is to say that the rule applies equally in both terms laid out above (also this is a poorly worded question and should be thrown out immediately). With that being said, why would one of those two have to be questioned without their lawyers? Subsequently the assumption being made is that everyone has the right to their attorney at questioning, but according to the plaintiff's rule, the "odd man out" has the right to counsel being present just as much as he is barred.

We've been told on various occasions throughout the lessons to not pick the answer choice that proposes a problem with the experiment. We've actually been specifically told to assume that the experiment was done as explained, in other words the experiment could still have faults but they were not mentioned. In this instance the researchers explicitly mention that they stimulated human VNO cells. So what changed? Are we now to feel free to question the integrity of explicitly stated experimental processes? This is especially pronounced when at least two other answer choices had far more reasonable assumptions accompanying them (C, D, and I would also argue B).

How does a general statement about regular exercise and preventing weight gain provide ANY support toward the conclusion which states that quitting smoking may be as simple as replacing it with a healthy hobby? I understand that both topics are loosely covered in the context/premises, but it is merely consistent with the conclusion.

#feedback When answering the question in the drill, the lower half of the stimulus, and answer choices C-E were shifting back and forth constantly making it super challenging to read.

In reference to answer choice D, how could you possibly make the case that affirming a puddle-jump assumption works to strengthen the argument. I understand how C is irrelevant, but D is equally irrelevant; it makes no mention of the psychologists argument at all.

There has never been a discussion or even a warning that we are to establish the baseline of what seems right in the world of the stimulus. As a matter of fact, we have been drilled to look at the apparent contradiction, understand we laypeople may have made a naive assumption, and find a plausible explanation as to why the contradiction presented makes sense. In this scenario, why am I to assume right off the bat that women who don't eat nutritious diets will give birth to babies with more health problems than the nutritious diet group? Sure in our world it makes perfect sense, but maybe there is something I don't know, I should be resolving the apparent discrepancy, not drawing a comparison to the other group.

How is the answer not B? It claims in the first sentence of the stimulus that journalists report the same amount of false claims as they did in the past; the second sentence says they simply fail to challenge the validity of the false claims, thus implying that they can sort true/false. How then, could reporting on more broad/specialized topics (implying they are unaware of the validity of the claims) support the lack of reporting validity when the stimulus strongly implies that the journalists know that the claims they quote are false? Additionally, answer choice D supports the stimulus arguably the best of all the answer choices. It talks about how a major goal of journalism is to spark debate over controversial topics, which grabs the public's attention. Would it not then be a reasonable explanation to not challenge and subsequently allow the newsmaker to continue to make controversial claims unaltered so that their readers can dive into debate?

So are we supposed to make the assumption based on the stimulus that he is a polarizing political figure, then make the assumption that because of that people love him or hate him regardless of what he does?? That seems like an unreasonable set of assumptions to make.

#feedback

Working through this module I've really enjoyed the lesson note feature, however, I would appreciate a highlighter function. I commonly use bold, italics, and underlining to mark up my notes, but it often doesn't feel like its enough. Especially when drawing comparisons, the ability to color code like terms has felt noticeably missing.

How is it that the conclusion in 2.1 is now a premise in 3.1? The last sentence changed from strictly premise to more so a conclusion, but how can that simply negate a pre-existing conclusion?

Is the word 'accompanied' itself the reason the logic can be reversed? I was hesitant to choose D because it felt like a trap answer trying to get me to reverse logic that can't be reversed.

In question 9, I understand how the contraposing argument says since WW cannot make meth, therefore, he cannot grow weed. However, it does not explicitly mention a relationship between weed and LSD. Does that mean the first sentence "If Mr. White grows weed, then he also cooks meth." is Iron-clad in saying that those two come in a pair?

I still have a hard time believing the answer is not B. Obviously it is because the LSAT scorers said so, but the crux of the argument against B is that it mentions 'all skeptics' while Waller's stimulus only mentions the 'general public'. How would the general public dis-include all skeptic's? Perhaps it doesn't cover the full umbrella of skeptics, but its certainly a reasonable assumption to believe at least some skeptics are included in the 'general public'.

#feedback In situations like this where we go through and dissect a question, I find it more helpful to have the question be displayed unadulterated, and in full prior to analysis. I find that it helps if I can take my own unofficial attempt at the question before we dive in. In this example specifically, I could very well see myself being duped by answer choice A, but when I don't get a chance to answer it on my own, like in this video, answer choice A never has a chance to be potentially correct, and is obviously wrong.