Hi I'm unable to see the AC bubbles next to questions on LawHub website and have to guess if the one I selected is the one being put in. Nervous that this might persist for the real one. Is anyone else experiencing this?

Interested! Sound like a great idea for 3rd BR

@ said:

Doing the low resolution summaries REALLY helped me. It's like, once I started doing them I could remember pretty much the entire passage without doubting what they were talking about.

When attempting timed passages do you usually make up the low resolution summaries in your mind or write them down?

Hi! I will give it a shot.

Conclusion: "severe pollution of the north sea waters must have weakened the immune system of the seals so that they could no longer withstand the virus"

We need to find a way to strengthen the gaps in the stimulus or come up with something that removes any doubts about the conclusion being true. I couldn't make a prediction for this one so got to the AC through method of elimination

B. Okay they have been taking the lead but how effective are they? no sense of relativity given to help us assume their success rate in pollution prevention? This does nothing for the argument. Also if it were true it will weaken the argument

C. doesn't help us prove our conclusion because doesn't talk about pollution

D. Knowing what types of seal are present also doesn't strengthen our conclusion

E. This weakens our argument. If this is true then it was the newness of the virus that was the reason for the deaths not the pollution

This leaves us with A.

A. is right because

it points to other data points that like the sudden seal population deaths are a result of pollution.

The data points received "steep drops" which matches with "suddenly" from stimulus

If there was pollution in the sea causing the deaths then it was bound to affect other species too right? Our seal deaths are not an anomaly. This AC proves that

@ said:

@ said:

@ said:

OP, I think there are two issues that may be causing difficulty for you.

Sentences are made up of a subject and a predicate (which is basically the thing that the subject does or the fact that we are getting about the subject). Generally, unless the predicate is about something being necessary/sufficient, you can think of the subject as the sufficient condition and the predicate as the necessary condition.

Take this example: "Alligators are not good pets." Here, the subject is alligators and the fact we are getting about them is that they are not good pets. So you can think of this as "If alligator -> Not good pet."

Contrast that with this: "A science degree is necessary to be hired at the NIH." Here, even though science degree is the grammatical subject of the sentence, and "being necessary to be hired at the NIH" is the predicate, because the predicate is saying that the science degree is necessary, the way to think about this sentence is "If hired at NIH -> Science degree". (This shows how when the predicate is labeling the subject of the sentence as sufficient/necessary, you don't want to blindly follow the general rule I described above about the subject = sufficient and predicate = necessary.)

Now I'll note the two tricky things that arise in the example sentence you're asking about.

First, in a more complicated sentence, the subject may include a modifier that has conditional language. But that modifier doesn't change anything about how we understand the relationship between the subject and the predicate. The subject is still going to be the sufficient and the predicate is still going to be the necessary.

For example: "Animals that require multiple daily walks to be happy are tough to care for."

The subject of this sentence (the thing the sentence is giving me a fact about) is "animals that require multiple daily walks to be happy". The predicate is "are tough to care for". So I would diagram this like so:

If the animal requires multiple daily walks to be happy -> tough to care for it.

The part saying "requires multiple daily walks to be happy" is not going to the necessary condition of the whole sentence because it's simply part of the modifier of "animals". What's the class of things that the sentence is about? Animals that require multiple daily walks to be happy. Treat that whole idea as the sufficient condition.

(On the other hand, if the sentence were just "Animals require multiple daily walks to be happy", now this is saying that all animals need multiple daily walks to be happy, and the correct interpretation would be "If an animal is happy -> must have multiple daily walks.")

The second tricky thing in the sentence you're asking about is that the subject of the sentence is not at the beginning. Take the same sentence we used before: "Animals that require multiple daily walks to be happy are tough to care for." Now let me reword the sentence without changing the meaning:

"It is tough to care for animals that require multiple daily walks to be happy."

It's still diagrammed as "Animals that require multiple daily walks -> tough to care for" because the thing that the sentence is giving me a fact about is still "animals that require multiple daily walks to be happy". That's still the subject. And the predicate is still "tough to care for" even though it appears in the first half of the sentence.

All this is to say that English allows for awkward sentences and we have to careful about how we're parsing each sentence.

So now to the sentence you're asking about:

"It is expensive to teach people a software that requires the memorization of unfamiliar commands."

The subject is "software that requires memorization of unfamiliar commands". The predicate is "expensive to teach". So "If software that requires memorization of unfamiliar commands -> then it is expensive to teach."

Wow okay this is VERY helpful to keep in mind for the future. Thanks!!! Just so I don't make the same mistake again of blindly using this subject/predicate identification method like I did with the necessary and sufficient indicator words could you please give me an example of a sentence where the predicate is about something being necessary/sufficient?

Sure, that's this example here:

Contrast that with this: "A science degree is necessary to be hired at the NIH." Here, even though science degree is the grammatical subject of the sentence, and "being necessary to be hired at the NIH" is the predicate, because the predicate is saying that the science degree is necessary, the way to think about this sentence is "If hired at NIH -> Science degree".

Let me try another example. Contrast the following:

"An A+ average is difficult to achieve."

"An A+ average is required to be named valedictorian."

The first sentence, if you want to think of it in terms of a conditional, is "If A+ average -> difficult to achieve." The subject is A+ average, and the fact we're getting about it is that it's difficult to get.

The second sentence, however, is more usefully understood as "If named valedictorian -> A+ average." Even though "A+ average" is still the grammatical subject of the sentence, the predicate is saying that this subject is necessary for something else. So that's why A+ is now the necessary condition.

Okay thanks for clarification!!!

@ said:

OP, I think there are two issues that may be causing difficulty for you.

Sentences are made up of a subject and a predicate (which is basically the thing that the subject does or the fact that we are getting about the subject). Generally, unless the predicate is about something being necessary/sufficient, you can think of the subject as the sufficient condition and the predicate as the necessary condition.

Take this example: "Alligators are not good pets." Here, the subject is alligators and the fact we are getting about them is that they are not good pets. So you can think of this as "If alligator -> Not good pet."

Contrast that with this: "A science degree is necessary to be hired at the NIH." Here, even though science degree is the grammatical subject of the sentence, and "being necessary to be hired at the NIH" is the predicate, because the predicate is saying that the science degree is necessary, the way to think about this sentence is "If hired at NIH -> Science degree". (This shows how when the predicate is labeling the subject of the sentence as sufficient/necessary, you don't want to blindly follow the general rule I described above about the subject = sufficient and predicate = necessary.)

Now I'll note the two tricky things that arise in the example sentence you're asking about.

First, in a more complicated sentence, the subject may include a modifier that has conditional language. But that modifier doesn't change anything about how we understand the relationship between the subject and the predicate. The subject is still going to be the sufficient and the predicate is still going to be the necessary.

For example: "Animals that require multiple daily walks to be happy are tough to care for."

The subject of this sentence (the thing the sentence is giving me a fact about) is "animals that require multiple daily walks to be happy". The predicate is "are tough to care for". So I would diagram this like so:

If the animal requires multiple daily walks to be happy -> tough to care for it.

The part saying "requires multiple daily walks to be happy" is not going to the necessary condition of the whole sentence because it's simply part of the modifier of "animals". What's the class of things that the sentence is about? Animals that require multiple daily walks to be happy. Treat that whole idea as the sufficient condition.

(On the other hand, if the sentence were just "Animals require multiple daily walks to be happy", now this is saying that all animals need multiple daily walks to be happy, and the correct interpretation would be "If an animal is happy -> must have multiple daily walks.")

The second tricky thing in the sentence you're asking about is that the subject of the sentence is not at the beginning. Take the same sentence we used before: "Animals that require multiple daily walks to be happy are tough to care for." Now let me reword the sentence without changing the meaning:

"It is tough to care for animals that require multiple daily walks to be happy."

It's still diagrammed as "Animals that require multiple daily walks -> tough to care for" because the thing that the sentence is giving me a fact about is still "animals that require multiple daily walks to be happy". That's still the subject. And the predicate is still "tough to care for" even though it appears in the first half of the sentence.

All this is to say that English allows for awkward sentences and we have to careful about how we're parsing each sentence.

So now to the sentence you're asking about:

"It is expensive to teach people a software that requires the memorization of unfamiliar commands."

The subject is "software that requires memorization of unfamiliar commands". The predicate is "expensive to teach". So "If software that requires memorization of unfamiliar commands -> then it is expensive to teach."

Wow okay this is VERY helpful to keep in mind for the future. Thanks!!! Just so I don't make the same mistake again of blindly using this subject/predicate identification method like I did with the necessary and sufficient indicator words could you please give me an example of a sentence where the predicate is about something being necessary/sufficient?

@ said:

DMUS = demands memorization of unfamiliar commands - I think me may meant to have written a "C" but wrote an "S" because was thinking about software. But this is just a guess on my part.

E = Expensive

When something is in the necessary condition, it means that, in the world of software that demand memorization of unfamiliar commands, we KNOW that it is expensive. Other things in this world can also be expensive, but we know for sure that things that DMUS, are expensive, according to this statement.

Think of it this way, Ellen Cassidy, the author of The Loophole, talks about using "The What Test." Add a "what" to whichever side of the indicator makes grammatical sense. What is the indicator referring to? (Examples: If what?, when what?, people who what? In order to what?, What's essential?)

So, for your specific sentence that you had mentioned....Things that demand memorization of unfamiliar commands are what? They are expensive.

"Sufficient indicators are inclusive, open words. Whereas necessary indicators come from a place of certainty. They are ironclad, serious and restrictive. They are obligations. What's important isn't how the conditionals are expressed, but the core relationship hiding underneath the language." - Paraphrasing from The Loophole

Ah I see! Thank you so much!

interested

@ said:

I tricked my head back and forth when I first started. Then I woke up and quit making it so dang complicated!

What does the word necessary mean to you? To me it's...well necessary. It's required. I HAVE TO HAVE IT. These are all synonyms for necessary.

Your example is a bit further off the ledge (b/c it's the actual LSAT) but it says like "something demands the memorization of unfamiliar commands". Demand is the necessary condition indicator. It's used just like "requires". "Something requires the memorization of unfamiliar commands"

Whatever it is that you MUST have, are required to have, or whatever is necessary, that's your necessary condition.

The "thing" that is DOING the "requiring", that's your sufficient condition.

The sufficient can't exist without it's requirements. So when you see the sufficient existing, you know it has it's requirements. It has it's necessary conditions fulfilled.

Hi thanks for your reply! I think I should have mentioned the full sentence to make it more clear. Here the sentence in PT26.S3.Q21 that confuses me is that "we that it is expensive to teach people a software that demands requires the memorization of unfamiliar commands" JY diagrams this sentence as DMUS ---> E

I understand that requires is usually a Necessary indicator but here the bit after the indicator is falling into the sufficient which is confusing me.

Love to join!

Interested

Hi would appreciate help on LG!

Hi! I’m in the same boat and it’s rough. Been foolproofing for months but never do well on a new section. Let me know if you figure something out 😩

Scoring in low 160s and interested!

I'm confused about E because for a NA AC the wording seemed too strong to me. Just because the C enzyme levels have been restored to normal once how can that guarantee that the person will not suffer from periodontitis in the future? If we answer that it does guarantee to eliminate suffering then aren't we assuming that restoring C enzyme levels is the only way to eliminate peritonitis which is AC A or D? #help

@ sure. Let me message you

@ said:

Wow I literally came onto the forums to post about my struggles with these two question types. Both should be low-hanging fruit and I'm also finding that even 3-star questions ACs make me pause way too long when I'm under time pressure. I'm spending this whole week to return to the CC, drill Flaw questions, and parse every single AC before I take my next PT this weekend. When reviewing, I'm consulting JY's video explanation as well as Manhattan Prep and Powerscore forums which often have great write-ups that sheds new light on the ACs. Maybe you also just need more exposure to the abstract language?

Hi! Honestly I don’t know what else to do so I’ve been doing a deep blind review of these questions too in hopes of making them click. Good luck to you!

Please let me know if I am right? I think one of the reasons why C is wrong is because it says "would like to go out to dinner together" in the premise which means that if any one part won't go then the whole won't go. This is not the same as the whole-part flaw in the stimulus because AC C doesn't have a flaw, its conclusion is well supported by the premise I mentioned above where as the stimulus makes a jump.

Ah I see, so the reason the AC is incorrect because of the something can happen vs something is happening error. Thank you so much for clarifying this!!!

@ said:

When you say "Whereas this answer choice goes a step further and says that the most important function of epic poetry is actually being carried out on a group of people" do you mean to say that "a group of people" here is used in the numeric relationship sense which is why "a group of people" is not equal to "many groups of people"? I think my confusion stems from the sentence "The most important function of epic poetry is to transmit the values by which a group of people is to live" as I perceived the mention of "a group of people live" here as a model group rather than a singular group and didn't catch this as a numeric difference when I came to answer choice D. Thanks for your help!

So the language "some" in answer choice D implies at least one group of people. The reason D is wrong is not because of the distinction of at least one group (or "a group") vs several groups, but rather because the answer choice is saying that groups of people (or even a single group of people) are hearing epic poems- which based on the stimulus we cannot infer. All we know is the mechanism by which epic poetry carries out its most important function, we don't know whether or not there has been an instance in which epic poetry carried out said function.

I hope that clears it up!

Hi thanks for your thorough reply!

I am afraid I am still a little confused about D. I hope my question makes sense but will give it another shot.

When you say "Whereas this answer choice goes a step further and says that the most important function of epic poetry is actually being carried out on a group of people" do you mean to say that "a group of people" here is used in the numeric relationship sense which is why "a group of people" is not equal to "many groups of people"? I think my confusion stems from the sentence "The most important function of epic poetry is to transmit the values by which a group of people is to live" as I perceived the mention of "a group of people live" here as a model group rather than a singular group and didn't catch this as a numeric difference when I came to answer choice D. Thanks for your help!

@ said:

Hey there,

Heres a quick breakdown of the question.

Prem: The most important function of epic poetry is to transmit the values by which a group of people is to live.

Prem: This transmission is done via embodiment in heoric figures who are presented as role models

Prem: Imitating those role models (heroic figures) gives meaning and direction to the lives of those who hear the poems.

Inference: the most important function of epic poetry is carried out via role models (heroic figures)

A) This talks about POETRY, the stimulus discusses EPIC poetry. Toss it.

B- This is supported by the stim and must be true according to the information we're given. Keep in mind "most" in this answer choice is qualifying the degree of importance- which is explicitly stated in the stimulus. "most" in this sense is not referring to a numeric relationship. This answer choice is essentially just detailing the mechanism by which EP accomplishes its most important function.

In regards to the loophole, i'm assuming the context Ellen Cassidy is referring to is the unsubstantiated "most", which is usually acting as the existential qualifier denoting numeric relationships. However, in this case Cassidy's powerful provable does not apply as the AC matches the language (power) seen in the stimulus. As a rule of thumb, don't blindly abide by the powerful vs provable model- sure its great, but it also needs to be understood in context. It's not some iron clad rule that can be applied to every and any situation.

C) extremely vague and also not supported by the stim, like answer choice A, this talks about poetry, not EPIC poetry.

D) This is also not supported by the stim. Stack this up against B and you will see the difference. B denotes the mechanism by which EP accomplishes its most important function. Whereas this answer choice goes a step further and says that the most important function of epic poetry is actually being carried out on a group of people. In other words, some people are hearing epic poems. But we don't know this based on the stim. Toss it.

E) Again, not supported. For all we know multiple other things have an identical function.

Hope this helped!

Hi I struggle with this too and have found doing a bunch of questions as warm up before the test to help. I have also started approaching the first 10 questions differently, I go in with a more attacking mindset now and force myself to not dwell too much on the answers.

Interested!

interested!

Following. Also wondering if green card holders are eligible to sit for the bar exam?

AC D is also incorrect because it assumes something about the Oroma civilization. Perhaps the Oromo civilization was influenced by some other civilization but since the stimulus doesn’t go into detail about the Oromo civilization we can’t assume that. I didn’t choose AC D because of this reason