@ if you could get someone to take a look a this question for me that would be really helpful. :)

Let's Analyze this argument:

Conclusion: It is important for the maintenance of a healthy back, to exercise the muscles on opposite sides of the spine equally.

Premise 1: The muscles on opposite sides of the spine must pull equally in opposing directions to keep the back in proper alignment.

Sub-conclusion/Premise 2: Balanced muscle development is needed to maintain a healthy back.

This is a necessary assumption question. The answer will be one that, if false, would invalidate the argument. The answer choice may or may not be sufficient for the conclusion.

A) This is saying that equally well developed muscles ALONE are ENOUGH to keep the back in proper alignment.

Let's contradict this: equally well developed muscles ALONE are NOT ENOUGH to keep the back in proper alignment.

As you can see, this does not invalidate the argument. Even if equally well developed muscles are not SUFFICIENT for a healthy back, they may still be NECESSARY. I.e. there are other factors at play in keeping the back in proper alignment (posture, genetics, etc).

B) This is saying (unequal exercise of spine muscles) --> (Unbalanced Muscle Development) --> Unhealthy back.

Let's contradict this: Unequal exercise of spine muscles DOES NOT lead to unbalanced muscle development.

As you can see, the above would invalidate the argument. If unequal exercise of spine muscles didn't lead to unbalanced muscle development, why would it be important to equally exercise the muscles in the spine. The above absolutely HAS TO BE the case (it is necessary) for us to draw our conclusion.

Hope that helps!

@ thanks for your help :)

@ or @ if you could that a look, that would be really helpful! This question is driving me crazy haha.

@ thanks, that does make sense! I understand the concept of B occurring without A weakening the argument just "a little", but what confuses me is when there is a better answer choice available.

I know you haven't done PT 79 yet, but amongst the answer choices were 2 options

1. effect w/o cause

2. (In my opinion better) A does not cause B, but rather B causes A

Is it possible to have 2 answer choices that could conceivably weaken the argument? I was under the assumption this whole time that there would only be one.

@ thank you for the explanation!

Can someone elaborate on point 2?

(2) Assumption: usually involves a shift in scope like SA or NA questions (idea X -> idea Y). These types rely more on your intuition and answer choices will almost always address the jump.

@

Thank you! I now realize this relationship is completely context dependent. Your explanation is amazing!

Hi,

I can relate to this. I don't actually review LSAT material with my boyfriend, but we usually sit next to each other/in the same room and work in silence. We take breaks to eat together or go for walks. Sometimes, if I have a hard time understanding something, we talk through it together. I think it helps that my boyfriend has things to study for as well and tons of work to do.

Having said that, I personally find that explaining LSAT concepts to somebody completely unfamiliar with the exam is a waste of my time. Unless you are the very beginning of you prep, explaining basic concepts like conditional statements or argument structure is not going to be of much help. I've found myself wasting a good 30 minutes going over something basic just so I can talk through the advanced concept I'm trying to understand.

If you are the type of person that needs to study with someone, I'd find a study buddy- either online or in person. Also, encourage your significant other to study for something as well. If he is an professional field, is there a certification he can go for? Is there anything he can do to go above and beyond for work in his spare time? I'd make the most out of the fact that you are studying for your lsat. Your significant other should use this time to be productive as well.

http://lsatblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/steps-solving-weaken-logical-reasoning.html I found this really helpful!

I understand why E is correct, but can someone explain why A is wrong?

Thank you! I do think it could be due to the fact that I recently started tutoring. I think the act of explaining it to somebody else really helps solidify understanding.

Questions Stem: Most logically completes… so this is an argument full of premises and we want to understand where these premises are compelling us to believe.

The author here is a philosopher.

Context: Nations are not people. They have no thoughts or feelings and perform no actions. As a result they have no moral rights or responsibilities.

Argument:

Sub conclusion/Major Premise: No nation can survive unless many of its citizen attribute moral rights or responsibilities to it.

Premise: Why is the above true? Nothing but attributing moral rights/responsibilities to a national could prompt people to make the sacrifices national citizenship requires.

Obviously, then, a nation should be attributed moral rights/responsibilities.

A- It's not saying this. In fact it's saying that the belief a nation has moral rights is the ONLY thing that would allow a nation to survive.

B- Yes, taken together, this is the conclusion. Citizens have to have these beliefs. The author has stated these beliefs are literally false.

C- Maybe, sure. But not the main point.

D- Doesn't say this at all.

E- Doesn't say this at all.

Questions Stem: Most logically completes… so this is an argument full of premises and we want to understand what these premises are compelling us to believe.

Proponents of…okay right away this is context…

Context: Proponents of electric cars maintain that when technical problems are solved these cars will (1) be widely used and (2) result in an abatement of the environmental degradation caused by auto emissions.

AO: Now we get to the argument. The author is saying "wait it's not this simple! Unless we dam more rivers, because of the sources used to charge batteries in electric cars, the environmental damage will not be reduced as much as we think"

Okay, so conclusion will be something along the lines of

Thus, the electric car will cause more environmental damage than we think.

A- Yes, exactly this.

B- Not saying this

C - Saying opposite of this

D- We don't know if it will increase or reduce.

E- Have no idea (similar to D).

Context: Many different human hormones can by themselves raise glucose in blood.

Conclusion: The reason for this is probably a metabolic quirk.

Premises: To see this,

- Brain cells use only glucose

Sub conclusion: Thus, if blood glucose levels fall too low, brain cells will rapidly starve, leading to unconsciousness and death.

A- No- this is context. We want something that says the reason for this is probably the metabolic.

B - Yes, exactly

C- No, premise

D- Sub conclusion

E- No, not at all. This may be true but is not the main point of the argument.

Does anyone remember how many questions were in the last game?

Thank you for all the replies! This was really motivating. I will just keep working at it and see how far I can get.