D is attractive because there are a few claims that could be considered "a general conclusion," but "nations do not have consciences" is not an instance of any of them. Hope the below helps someone!

1) general conclusion: "any ascription of praise or blame to a group must be translated into some statement about individuals if we are to evaluate it properly." An instance of this conclusion might be "any ascription of praise or blame to a nation must be translated into some statement about its head of state/the majority of its population if we are to evaluate it properly."

2) general conclusion: "groups are not the type of entity that can be worthy of praise or blame." An instance of this conclusion might be "a nation can be neither praised nor blamed for the actions of its elected officials/will of its majority."

3) general conclusion: "blameworthiness implies conscience and agency." An instance of this conclusion might be "a head of state can be worthy of blame because a head of state, unlike a nation, has a conscience and agency."

#help 11. Yes, one definition of sympathy means to pity, but there are others:

agreement in feelings or emotions between people or on the part of one person toward another, especially as based on similar tastes, shared understanding, etc.

agreement, consonance, or accord

Is AC A incorrect for other reasons?

More generally, when the LSAT uses a word with multiple meanings in an AC, should we default toward being generous (adopting the meaning that makes the AC correct) or ungenerous (adopting the meaning that makes the AC incorrect)?

#help

How do you conclude that presence of the SB in the throat is a NC? I understand that it is not a SC and that the host being rundown is a NC, but I don't see how you can assume based on the wording of the stimulus (and not outside knowledge) that SB presence is also a NC. In this way it is markedly different from AC B, which explicitly states that BOTH sunlight and alkaline soil are NC.

I think it's really helpful to note that the question doesn't say "strengthens the conclusion" or "strengthens the overall argument"; it says "strengthens THE GROUNDS". This hints that the correct AC must strengthen the premise that erosion has destroyed much of the rubbish. Understanding this makes it easier to eliminate all the wrong ACs and see why B is strengthening.

Interested! Registered for September and averaging 173.

Q. 27

D: Yes, it examines (through an illustration) another facet (in certain cultures authenticity is a foreign concept) of a distinction (between fake and authentic) advanced by the author in the preceding paragraphs

E: if the final p affirmed a general principle, it would be that in some cultures authenticity is a foreign concept, but that's not the principle enunciated at the beginning of the passage, which is that it can be difficult to distinguish fake from authentic. The final p supports this 'principle' through an illustration of one facet of the difficulty, but it doesn't affirm it.

I was all worked up about the answer to 5 being A til I realized...

L16: “the DIGITAL PUBLICATION OF A BOOK ONLINE involves no physical inventory, thereby eliminating the costs of warehousing,....” The digital publication of a book online involves no physical inventory. The printing of books at point of sale may - and according to common sense will likely - still require inventory...duh.

Hopes this helps someone else.

#help

Q13: I chose D because it felt like the least wrong answer, but can someone please explain to me how 'suffering' ( which JY says human figures symbolize in his elimination of AC A) is not an emotion or psychological state?

B is wrong because the money from the government proposal goes to burglary victims generally, not the specific burglary victims of the burglar whose wages were confiscated.

C is correct because it makes the premise (where the money goes) relevant to the conclusion (whether stealing can be justified). If the motive is irrelevant to whether something is justified, then there is no argument.

Please #help

Negating AC A doesn't negate the argument:

The engraving was made in 15000 BC and brought to the settlement upon occupying it in 14000 BC, and mammoths disappeared from the area in 13000 BC.

With this timeline, the engraving was NOT made during the time when the settlement was occupied (AC A is negated), but the settlement was occupied at a time when mammoths lived in the area (the author's conclusion).

The only way negating AC A could negate the argument is if the conclusion is not "the settlement was occupied at a time when mammoths lived in this area", but rather "this [a fossil bone with an engraving of a mammoth found in an ancient settlement in eastern North America] SHOWS the settlement was occupied at a time when mammoths lived in this area".

#help Q11

P3 says major eruptions can directly cause a drop in temperature of up to half a degree, even without the feedback loop. Is half a degree just too small a difference to be considered ‘unusually cold’?

I was initially attracted to C until I realized it was a sufficient assumption and not required for the conclusion to be reached

Q. 14 D #help

Can someone please explain to me how the P. Brevis hypothesis is an alternative explanation? Alternative to what? It seems to me that the P. Brevis hypothesis is the initial explanation and the author's PCB hypothesis is the alternative explanation (singular).

#help

Premise: "these works are of inferior quality"

Major premise: these works "add nothing to the overall quality of the museum's collection"

Main conclusion: "the board's action [of selling these works] will not detract from the quality of the museum's collection"

I see how B undermines the argument, but it only does so by explicitly contradicting the major premise. I thought we were supposed to accept the premises as true. So, do these works "add nothing to the overall quality of the museum's collection" as stated by the premise, or do they contribute to the quality of the collection as stated by B?

Interested!