5/5, too easy

5/5

This was so easy. All you had to see was that the conclusion of the provided argument results in:

/X -> /Y

Basically, both sides of the reasoning are negated. As soon as you see this, every other option is eliminated, as C is the only one with the same structure of both sides being negated.

5/5

5/5 easy

@willdhorn,

As JY mentioned in the beginning of this module, the list of terms is overinclusive/underinclusive.

This means that some of these indicators are a bigger list than what may show up on the LSAT, or there may be more different indicators than what you may have been shown in this module. A good strong foundational understanding of these arguments will allow you to decipher different indicator words, and with practice, you'll see others.

8/8

OMG, man, I knew it as soon as I submitted the wrong answer.

It's a negative comparative that no other brand will relieve pain as quickly. That logically means that either Danaxil is quicker than the other pills or they both relieve pain at the same time, which still justifies that no pill is faster; it's just the same recovery time.

This provides 2 possibilities for the idea of Evelyn and Jane taking their respective pills. Either Evelyn will have her headache cured faster, or her headache pain will not be cured slower than Jane's and at a minimum will be the same time as Jane's. It is either that or faster recovery.

This is why (C) is right. Evelyn (Danaxil patient) having her headache cured as quickly as Jane's is a better choice than (B) as it is a more proper possibility than that it will absolutely be faster. There is a chance that it won't be faster and that the other pill won't fix it quicker than Danaxil, but it may still fix the headache at the same time.

The conclusion of C is that Evelyn's headache being relieved at a minimum as quickly as Jane's shows that even if it's not quicker, it will still be at the same time. As we explored earlier, this is true based on the fact that it's a negative comparative, and it can have 2 possibilities (either the other pill will be slower than Danaxil or it won't be quicker and will just match the same time, i.e., Danaxil won't be beaten but could be matched).

"At least as quick" supports the 2 theories that could be possible while playing it safe with the argument so that it accounts for all possibilities.

I knew as soon as I submitted (B) I was wrong and overlooked the question. Don't sweat it; if you know why you messed up, you're doing pretty well for a level 5 difficulty question!

comparatives are lowk fun to do

@ZoeLight this was the best explanation and it makes me realize why D isn't right. thank you so much!

@Haleh, I thought that too, but it's mainly because the stimulus says that we have to consider all of the provided options to be true.

The thing is, in A it explicitly says that birds did NOT eat ANY mosquitos, which we know isn't true. That would be contradictory to the actual statement. That eliminates A and B.

E doesn't really serve as a good premise to support that mosquito populations go up and down with patterns, so it's irrelevant.

D actually supports that mosquito populations stayed down, which contradicts the fact that the mosquito population went up.

Hence, C is the best, as it still indicates that mosquitos were eaten, just not as much, and the fact that predators for mosquitos died gives further evidence that the mosquito population went up.

The key is taking all these statements to be true.

5/5

5/5

my timing is horrible lol

I pray the entire LSAT is just these easy questions lmao

So basically other people's positions are just a context to pave the way for the author to respond to the other person's POV using their own argument.

5/5

Every human is cooked for the LSAT.

I am a human.

I am cooked for the LSAT. (Sub-conclusion)

Everyone who is cooked for the LSAT is sad.

I am sad.

first 3/5, then 2/5, then 5/5. Keep working and you'll get it!

@LivM you can have a bad argument with unreasonable assumptions; it still makes an argument, though.

@TimothyBaerwalde a strong argument wouldn't have any missing links; the Disney example has only 2 definite ways of getting the pass, and the argument says that if you don't participate in 1 activity, then it must be the other. There isn't really an assumption, as it is just 2 choices that you have.

@LaurinU not really, the assumption is a missing link between the already stated premise and conclusion. it is basically a "premise" which has not been stated in the argument initially provided to you.

6/7, q3 was a tough one

"The test was very difficult—everyone failed."

Conclusion: Everyone failed (Receives support from the fact that the exam was difficult)

Premise: The exam was very difficult (gave support to the fact that everyone failed).

Most people eat burgers

All burgers are unhealthy

therefore, most people eat unhealthily.