Interested! Pting between 174-180 consistently after scoring a 168 on the January administration. In Pacific Time zone and generally free weekends.

I'm in a similar boat (scored 168 January 2021) and LG overconfidence prevented me from hitting my PT average (between 172-177). I am likely retaking in August and re-applying but still would love to review LG with you before June. Feel free to PM me.

Interested! My average on my last 10 PTs is 175 and I'm also from California.

PT 26 Passage 3 Explanation

Paragraph 1

ϖ Low resolution content: Dolphins are dying off in huge numbers.

ϖ High Resolution: A huge proportion of dolphins are washing ashore off the Atlantic, this has never been observed before, the research team examining the dolphins noticed skin lesions, internal lesions in the liver, lung, pancreas, and heart, which suggested a bacterial infection of dolphins already weakened.

ϖ Structure: Background/ Context

ϖ Analysis: This is a pretty cookie-cutter intro paragraph a phenomenon is described with some details. The subsequent paragraphs will describe different hypotheses that account for this phenomenon.

ϖ Sneak Peak: I am anticipating at least one hypothesis proposed for what caused the dolphin die-off.

ϖ Tone: Completely neutral/ objective

Paragraph 2

ϖ Low resolution content: Description/ observations of the dolphins that washed ashore

ϖ High Resolution: 8/17 dolphins tested had a certain Brevetoxin, which is produced by PB alga—in their system and tests for synthetic pollutants revealed that PCBs were present in almost all.

ϖ Structure: More details, presumably will be used for one hypothesis or another.

Paragraph 3 –

ϖ Low resolution content: The research team said brevotoxin responsible.

ϖ High Resolution: The research team conclude that brevotoxin was responsible. Although PB (which remember results in brevotoxin) is not typically found in the Atlantic a blooming of this alga did occur in middle of affected coastine in October 1987. The researchers think that the toxin accumulated in fish that were eaten by the dolphins. The feeble state of dolphins suggested that the dolphins were metabolizing their blubber reserves/ leading to their death and releasing stores of already accumulated synthetic pollutants. All of this made the dolphins vulnerable to bacterial infection, which was the cause of death.

ϖ Structure: Mainpoint #1, with support following

ϖ Analysis: So a hypothesis is proposed and support is given, but it is still unclear whether the author agrees/ disagrees with this hypo. Next paragraph should clear up.

Paragraph 4 –

ϖ Low resolution content: The conclusion that brevetoxin was cause of illness is not completely plausible. This other explanation is more plausible.

ϖ High Resolution: The conclusion that brevetoxin was cause of illness is not completely plausible because in Gulf of Mexico PB and same dolphins are there but no similar die-off occurs. Second, the dolphins were dying off before the red bloom (related to brevetoxin) occurred. Third, the effects of brevetoxin on dolphins are unknown, while PCB is known to impair the function of immune system/ liver in dolphins. An alternative hypo is that an influx of pollutants led to a bunch of disorders in animals whose systems were already full of pollutants. While brevetoxin could have been a contributing factor, the actual cause was the sharp increase in the dolphins’ exposure to synthetic pollutants.

ϖ Structure: Author critiques one explanation and proposes an alternative explanation that he/she likes more.

Main Point: It is unlikely that the breveotoxin led to the dolphin die-off and is more likely that an increase in dolphins’ exposure to synthetic pollutants led to die-off.

Tone: Skeptical of one theory, more accepting of other theory. Does not outright reject first theory.

Viewpoints: There is the viewpoint of the research team and the author.

Structure: Phenom/ background, viewpoint #1 w/ support, author’s opinion of viewpoint #1, author proposes al. explanation/ viewpoint #2.

Cookie Cutter: Pretty cookie-cutter set up of background, describing one hypothesis, the author criticizing but not outright rejecting, and then proposing a more plausible explanation.

Question: 70.1.24

Question Type: Inference

Methodology: Ingrain facts in your head, look for interlocking piece(s), and check the text when eliminating and confirming answers.

Premise(s):

1. Some homeowners regularly add commercial fertilizers to their lawns/ gardens in order to maintain a healthy balance of nutrients in the soil.

2. The widely available commercial fertilizers contain only macronutrients (nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium).

3 In order to remain healthy in the long term soil for lawns requires macronutrients and small amounts of micronutrients (such as zinc, iron, copper).

4. The micronutrients that are required for these lawns are depleted when instead of allowing them to decay and return to the soil, they are raked up.

Analysis: Relatively easy to follow the facts here. Some potential inferences:

1) at least some lawns would be healthier over the long term if grass clippings were left alone to decompose.

2) Macronutrients are not sufficient in the long term for the soil in lawns to remain healthy (b/c they require the micronutrients), which also means that the widely available commercial fertilizers are not sufficient for healthy lawn soil in the long term (anticipating this is the correct AC).

A) Who knows??? There is only the mention of the widely available fertilizers. What if there is a super rare type of fertilizer that has both the macro/ micronutrients.

B) Really?? Again, who freaking knows. Seems very likely that these macronutrients could be derived from things other than commercial fertilizers.

C) Yes, matches my pre-phase perfectly. This was the lego-piece connection the test writers wanted you to make and only requires combining the second and third set of facts.

D) We simply do not know if the necessary condition for soil health is the regular addition of commercial fertilizers and a source of micronutrients. What if one or the other is only required once every few years?

E) Conditional statement of if rake up grass clippings then unable to maintain the long-term health of soil. This answer choice cannot be proven by the answer choices because we simply do not know if raking up the grass is sufficient to destroy the long-term health of the soil. It could very well be the case that there is something else homeowners can do to mitigate the damage done in the long term from raking up the grass clippings. A correct answer choice could be:

“homeowners who use only use widely available commercial fertilizers, always rake up their grass clippings, and do not supplement their lawns with any source of micronutrients, will not optimize the long-term health of the soil in their lawns and gardens.”

Question: 45.1.12

Question Type: Weaken

Methodology: Attack the relationship b/t the premises and the conclusion. Accept the premises as true, question the conclusion drawn.

Context: Biologists found reproductive abnormalities in fish that are immediately downstream of paper mills. A potential cause is dioxin, which these mills release daily and can alter the hormones in a fish.

Premise(s): The fish recover normal hormone concentrations relatively quickly during occasional mill shutdowns and dioxin decomposes very slowly in the environment.

Conclusion: So, dioxin is unlikely to be the cause.

Analysis: I am looking to weaken a causal argument so I need to find a fact that would make dioxin not unlikely (could be very likely or anything more than very unlikely to be the cause. The premises assume that due to the slow decomposition of dioxin, if it were the cause, the fish would not recover quickly when the mills were off. There is a very subtle spatial component of this stimulus that makes it very difficult to get the correct answer choice, namely that the contextual sentence states that the fish with the reproductive abnormalities are immediately downstream.

A) This seems to be baiting a source flaw. Who cares if the studies were funded by paper manufacturers. This does mean anything about the validity of the studies themselves.

B) Okay?? So there are different rates of decomposition. This neither strengthens nor weakens. Does literally nothing to the argument. I would need to make assumptions about how dioxin decomposes in the particular environment we are discussing (immediately near paper mills).

C) Yes!! Since we are weakening a causal conclusion we need to find an answer that makes dioxin more likely to be the cause. This hinges on the slow reading of the first sentence and the identification of the spatial component of the stimulus. These fish with the abnormalities are immediately downstream (imagine like right next the mill). This answer choice demonstrates that dioxin very well could be the cause because when the flow of dioxin is shut off, the fish that are immediately downstream recover, but the current of the river typically carry the dioxin far away from these fish anyways (and it decomposes downstream).

D) Again, this does not do anything. I could interpret this as literally one fish did not recover rapidly (still could have recovered quickly) and furthermore this answer choice requires the assumption that the physiological changes that these fish did not recover from the reproductive abnormalities. What if there were other physiological changes that were not related to reproduction?

E) This answer choice tries to attack the implicit assumption between reproductive abnormalities and hormone concentrations. This answer choice is indeed tempting, but ultimately the language of “is not thoroughly understand” is far too weak for this answer choice. The relationship could be understood with limited data, but still not thoroughly understood. We need to be able to make inferences and certainty is not always required.

Question 14:

Question Type: NA

Methodology: What must the author agree with? What, if negated, would destroy the argument?

Translation: The principle that if one has to do something then he/she can do is not always true because if someone makes a promise to meet somewhere at a specific time but an unforeseen traffic jam it’s impossible to so.

Pre-phase: Pretty clear assumption that having some unforeseen event happen that inhibits you from being able to do something does not relieve you from the promise you made.

Cookie Cutter: If A (obligation) then B (capable) does not always hold true b/c here is an instance of A (promise) then not B (b/c traffic not capable).

A) Fail obligation then fail promise?? No the author is not assuming this. The author uses promise to apply the principle of an obligation.

B) What… No I think an alien space attack would also excuse you from your promise. Author does not have to agree w/ this.

C) Just no. Nothing in the stimulus about what someone ought not to do. Shut up LSAT.

D) Bingo. The negation: “An obligation created by a promise is relieved by the fact that the promise cannot be kept (aka b/c accident)”. This would absolutely destroy the argument, if true.

E) ???? There is nothing implying that an unforeseen event makes it so that someone should not have even made the promise in the first place.

Question 13:

Question Type: MSS

Methodology: Ingrain the facts in your head charge into the AC and feel comfortable to return to the stimulus to double check/ eliminate ACs

Translation: Specially bred fish w/ coloration/ unusual body shapes are popular w/ connoisseurs but they’re inferior to ordinary fish. Due to their shapes the special fish can’t access food as well and so are underfed. Also, the offspring of the special fish lack their special characteristics.

A) Just b/c they are underfed does not necessarily mean that special care is required for their survival. Dumb AC.

B) Idk what else connoisseurs are interested in. All we know is that they love themselves from special fish.

C) So out of the subset of special fish most of them get bought by connoisseurs??? Who knows.

D) Bingo. If the special fish are defined as special by their elaborate tails and strange fins then we can infer that ordinary fish do not tend to have these characteristics.

E) This is a stretch. Who knows if special fish even struggle to reproduce?? All we know is that their offspring don’t usually keep their weird characteristics.

Question 12:

Question Type: Strengthen

Methodology: What fact, if added to the argument, would make the premise(s) more relevant to the conclusion?

Translation: S is a better movie reviewer than K since a movie review should help readers figure out whether they would like a movie or not and a reader is more likely to realize that he/she would like a movie from reading S’s reviews.

Pre-phase: So the stimulus makes a claim (S is better than at X than K) and supports it with a principle and then uses a premise to support one side of the principle (namely helps determine whether they would like it). This argument has a hole in it b/c it does not address the other side. What if K is way better at helping readers determine whether they would not like a movie.

A) Who cares. Are we supposed to assume that having a technical knowledge of film makes some automatically a badass movie reviewer??? No not today LSAT.

B) Okay so 50+1 of K’s movie reviews are unfavorable. Who cares about the proportion of movie reviews that favorable versus not favorable.

C) Bingo. This is the flip side of the coin. The ppl also realizing if they’re gonna hate a movie more likely from reading S reviews.

D) This is conflating realizing one would enjoy/ not enjoy a movie with actually enjoying/ not enjoying a movie. Huge difference b/t the two. The principle is not like oh a movie review should make the reader enjoy the movie more??? Stupid.

E) Awesome. Who cares.

Question 11:

Question Type: MSS

Methodology: Ingrain the facts in your head charge into the AC and feel comfortable to return to the stimulus to double check/ eliminate ACs.

Translation: Modest amounts of exercise can lead to a dramatic improvement in cardiovascular. Although one should exercise at least 4 days a week, one only has to walk half an hour to obtain the health benefits. More vigorous exercise (sprinting?) is more effective. (I cut out the last clause b/c it is redundant we already know a brisk walk is sufficient to get the benefits so obviously a strenuous workout is not necessary.

A) Yup. If walking gets it done and a strenuous workout is more effective then it is 99.99% certain that having a strenuous workout most days of the week can produce a huge benefit in cardiovascular health.

B) No clue. All we know about is that most days walking produce the benefit but two or three is not most.

C) This seems more likely to be false. It is basically saying that you can have at least the same improvements from walking versus say running most days of the week and we know that the more strenuous exercise (i.e running) is more effective.

D) WHO KNOWS. Exercise is definitely not the only way to improve cardiovascular health. Maybe eat some damn cheerios.

E) Nopeeee. Seems like strenuous exercise is not necessary (actually explicitly stated in last sentence lol).

Question 10:

Question Type: Weaken

Methodology: What fact, if added to the argument would weaken the relationship b/t the premise(s) and the conclusion?

Translation: There was this study that compared two groups of undergrads ability to make a type of stone tool that Neanderthals made. The group that had verbal instructions and demonstrations did not make the tool quicker or better than the group that only had the demonstrations. So, Neanderthals could just as well have created their sophisticated tools even w/o language.

Pre-phase: Where the hell did the sophisticated tools come in? The groups were making a type of stone tool and we have no idea whether or not this was a sophisticated tool. At any rate, we cannot conclude something about sophisticated tools from an argument that literally says nothing about these types of tools. Looking for something to call out this logical jump.

A) No. This confuses the argument. The author is saying that language was not necessary for the sophisticated tools. This does not mean the cavemen did not have language. Regardless this AC sucks because it does not matter whether or not the cavemen had some form of language. The test writers want you to think that having a form of language proves that they used it during making tools when we have zero idea.

B) This is trying to assert a difference b/t the two groups, namely that the ppl that had verbal + visual demonstrations were also able to discuss the toolmaking w/ each other where the group that only had visual explanations were not. This certainly does not weaken and it could be interpreted to strengthen. Definitely wrong.

C) Yupppp. This fact makes it clear that these tools were not sophisticated tools so you cannot make any sort of inferences about sophisticated tools from the study.

D) Again, this would likely strengthen the argument because if the group that only had visual demonstrations had a shitty teacher and they still were just as proficient at making the tools it makes you think that maybe the more advanced tools could be made w/o language. However, we simply do not know whether the tools they made were simple, moderate, or sophisticated (or somewhere in between)

E) This does nothing and I assume it is answer choice E because nervous test-takers will rush to eliminate A-D and then fall for E because it mentions the tools being less sophisticated. But less sophisticated than what??? The AC says less sophisticated than Homo Sapiens that lived concurrently w/ the Neanderthals and likely possessed a language. WHO CARES ABOUT OUR SPECIES. We are trying to weaken the broad claim that the Neanderthals could have made their sophisticated tools w/o language. This AC also really sucks b/c even if they had less sophisticated tools than their Homo Sapiens counterparts this does not mean that they did not have sophisticated tools. Maybe the Homo Sapiens just had super-sophisticated tools and the Neanderthals did too just much less so.

Question 7:

Question Type: Flaw

Methodology: 1) Did this happen? 2) Does it matter?

Translation: Some city council ppl say that increasing the amount of air traffic beyond its original design wouldn’t decrease safety b/c they would purchase the latest technology. Since a bunch of studies conducted 30 yrs ago showed whenever there was an increase in air traffic beyond original design w/ using latest technology there was a decrease in safety, so the changes today would decrease safety.

Pre-phase: This argument SUCKS. Cool there were these studies 30 years ago that showed that safety was decreased. How in the hell would this mean that the safety would be decreased today as well? The author is assuming a high degree of technological continuity which is just ridiculous. Think about how much technology has evolved in the past 30 years let alone the past 5 years??? This is a temporal flaw and it is glaring.

A) No the author did not make a bunch of small inferences to conclude a general statement that then supports the main conclusion (aka it would decrease safety).

B) Bingo. The author doesn’t consider how technology has evolved in the past 30 freaking yrs.

C) Sure the author did not consider this but it is not a flaw in the argument. They could be aware of the studies but just ignored them.

D) No lack of evidence equals evidence of lacking.

E) Noooooo. Sure the argument did not consider this but who cares.

Question 8:

Question Type: Strengthen

Methodology: What fact, if added, would complete the argument?

Translation: Some ppl argue that since certain moral codes differ b/t cultures morality has to be entirely a result of culture. But this argument is flawed b/c research shows that certain moral attitudes are shared across cultures & just as some universal tastes like sweetness in diff. cultures can provide the basis for dif cuisines, different moral attitudes can provide the basis for dif moral codes.

C) Yes. Identical to my pre-state.

E) This is wrong b/c there is nothing about adaptation/ change in the moral attitudes in the stimulus.

Reflection: Kind of funky strengthen q that reminds me of later 80s/ flex tests. Asked to provide a premise in a fill in the blank to complete the analogy.

Question 5:

Question Type: Method of Reasoning

Methodology: What descriptively represents how the author’s argument proceeds?

Translation: There was this study w/ equal number of fifty y/o and twenty y/o that asked whether they gave blood. Twice as many fifty y/o said they sometimes give blood as the twenty y/o so the researchers concluded that the oldies are more altruistic. But we can be skeptical of this conclusion b/c some people hesitate to admit their actions don’t conform to society’s expectations.

Pre-phase: This seems like a perfectly okay argument. The author is pushing back against the explanation given by the researchers. The researchers strongly concluded that the oldies are more altruistic when a plethora of reasons (aka alternative explanations) could explain the findings. The author is highlighting that it may sometimes not be altruism but instead the oldies caring about whether they are conforming to societal expectations.

A) No the author does not say “well this does not represent the general population b/c X”

B) Bingo. The author is offering an alternative explanation as I predicted.

C) No the author did not say “but we cannot ever actually observe altruism so these researchers are wrong.”

D) No motives were attacked.

E) No the author was not like oh well look at these 20 year olds that are actually super community-oriented and way more altruistic than the oldies.

Question 9:

Question Type: Flaw

Methodology: 1) Did this happen? 2) Does it matter?

Translation: There was a positive correlation b/t the amount of plant species and plant growth/ nutrient retention so having more plant species causes an improvement in the plant’s health.

Pre-phase: No no no. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation. There are several reasons why. First, it could be reversed in that since the plants are healthier there are more plant species. Second, there could be some other cause like say in the study there was this super nutrient-dense water they were using to irrigate that caused the healthier plants and it had absolutely nothing to do with the quantity of plant species. Third, there could be literally no causal relationship at all. For example, murder rates have a positive correlation with ice cream sales but this does not mean murder causes ppl to eat ice-cream or vice versa. It is merely a correlation.

A) Bingo.

B) Yeah the argument did not say well here is this mechanism by which the plant species causes productivity to increase. But this does not matter.

C) This doesn’t even seem like a flaw. One prairie plot certainly could reveal something about the characteristics of other plots but this does not matter again.

D) Why would this data be unrepresentative? We have no idea.

E) No this was not the messing up the piece of the pie flaw. This would have been like oh well since there are more healthy plant species now they make up a greater percentage of the plot, but we have no idea about the size of the other non-healthy plants.

PT78.1.4

AC on Test:

AC on BR:

Correct AC:

Question Type: Point at issue.

Methodology: What can I definitely prove the first speaker agrees w/ and second speaker disagrees w/ (or vice versa).

Premise(s): Our goal was to reduce as much as possible the number of homes in the community that lack electricity and at the project’s conclusion 2,000 homes are still w/o electricity.

Conclusion: Our organization's project has been a failure.

Analysis: The author is making the assumption that if there are 2,000 homes w/o electricity then the objective of reducing as much many homes as possible was not met. There is a strong possibility that it simply was not feasible to provide electricity to the remaining 2,000 homes. This could have easily been a NA/ SA type question.

Premise(s): Over 5k homes had no electricity before the project.

Conclusion: The project was a success.

Pre-phase: The point at issue is clearly whether 2,000 remaining homes w/o electricity indicates a failure/ or success for the project.

A) They both agree.

B) Again, both would agree I think.

C) I don’t think either would agree, in fact, would likely both disagree. The first speaker is not saying since there are some remaining, then it was a failure.

D) first speaker would agree, second speaker idk.

E) Bingo. First speaker would agree, second speaker would object.

Question Type: Method of Reasoning

Methodology: What descriptively represents how the author’s argument proceeds?

Premise(s): The possibility of large rewards to ppl suing corporations gives corporations a strong incentive to reduce safety risks associated w/ their products.

Conclusion: So, allowing ppl the collect large rewards from suing corporations over dangerous products clearly benefits the consumers.

Premise(s): W/o sensible limits damage awards can be so high that corporations get destroyed and as a result employees lose their jobs and the productivity of the corporation is lost.

Conclusion: So w/o sensible limits the huge awards can actually harm the economy and incidentally the consumers.

Pre-phase: So the second speaker is essentially articulating a potential consequence of the first speaker’s argument. The first speaker strongly states that this mechanism clearly benefits the consumers and the second speaker is basically saying well hey, that is not always the case it can actually harm the consumers if there are not sensible limits.

Cookie Cutter: The second speaker commonly will point out a potential implication/ consequence of the first speaker’s argument.

A) I love this answer. It has the tentative language of the second speaker’s argument (i.e could have undesirable consequences) and points out a dimension of the argument that I know is 100% accurate. The undesirable consequences of the policy are the harms to the economy and the incidental harm to consumers.

B) The only premise the first speaker has it that the possibility of large awards gives corporations a strong incentive to reduce risks. The second speaker does not directly address this premise at all. In fact, I think the second speaker would likely agree w this statement but come back and say it is not always the case b/c w/o sensible limits there can actually be harm.

C) Nope. Super common argument structure but not employed here.

D) Again, super common but did not happen here.

E) No the speaker did introduce an alternative cause/ explanation.

Question Type: NA

Methodology: What must the author agree with? What, if negated, would destroy the argument?

Premise(s): In Homer’s epic, the Illiad, the Trojan War lasted 10 yrs and a city as small as the one uncovered by this guy’s team could not have withstood a siege lasting 10 yrs.

Conclusion: Dorpfeld’s belief that the 1893 excavation that discovered an ancient city was Troy cannot be correct.

Pre-phase: The author assumes that 1) Homer’s epic accurately represents the length of the Trojan War and that 2) the current state of the uncovered city accurately represents its size during the Trojan War (that is, what if the city downsized post-war, or a bunch of buildings got destroyed, or simply deteriorated over time).

A) The author does not have to agree w/ this. What if scholars knew of at least one other city that could be Troy? This does nothing to the argument.

B) What if the Illiad did have some clues ab the specific location?? This would not destroy the argument.

C) What if the archaeologist did find some evidence that the city they excavated had a siege there? I imagine that many ancient cities were under siege at some point and just because a particular city was under siege, does not mean that this siege was during the Trojan War.

D) This would weaken the argument.

E) Yes!! If the Illiad does not accurately represent the duration of the Trojan War then the whole argument falls apart. The assumption that this epic poem is accurate in its portrayal of the war is absolutely necessary to the author’s argument. Bingo.

Question Type: PSA

Methodology: What fact, if added to the argument, would make the premise(s) more relevant to the conclusion?

Premise(s): The survey that we are conducting needs to track employment status by age.

Conclusion: So, we should ask respondents to indicate their age.

Premise(s): We do not need results that provide employment status figures for every single age.

Conclusion: So, we should instead ask respondents merely to identify the age range they fall into.

Pre-phase: The point of disagreement is whether or not the survey should ask the respondents specifically what age they are, or whether they should solely ask what age range they fall into. Since we are seeking to strengthen the second speaker’s argument it is important to articulate that if something is unnecessary in a survey and you can get what you are looking for by asking a broader question, then it is permissible to do so or you should do so.

Cookie Cutter: Pretty typical dialogue question in which the second speaker slightly disagrees with the extent to which the first speaker takes his/ her argument.

A) Bingo. This is exactly what I pre-stated. It has the normative language of the stimulus (i.e should) and directly supports why the survey should ask the broader versus more specific q.

B) No. There is nothing about the respondents possibly answering the q inaccurately if they are asked for their specific age.

C) No. This would translate to Gather sensitive info → means of storing that info available. I could have seen the test writers making this the writer answer if the second speaker said no we do not have the capacity to store that much info (for each age) so we should ask the broader question in which case this answer’s contrapositive (i.e since we don’t have the means storing the info we should not gather it). This argument would require that they do have the means to collect the broader info.

D) No. The argument is not about whether or not the surveys should be allowed to gather info.

E) No. Gather sensitive info → first tell respondents how info will be used. This just completely misses the argument.

Question: 62.2.25

Question Type: Necessary Assumption

Methodology: What must the author agree with? The AC is correct if the negated version of it wrecks the argument.

Premise(s):

-Pool of applicants has been shrinking (ctxt)

-One possible explanation is that we charge too little for tuition/ fees (intermediate conclusion) because prospective students/ parents conclude that the quality of education they receive at this institution is lower that offered by institutions with higher tuition (premise)

Conclusion: So, if we want to increase the size of our applicant pool, we must raise our tuition and fees.

Pre-phase: The author concludes from the premise that a possible explanation for the shrinking applicant pool is the lower tuition/ fees and so to remedy this problem the institution must raise the tuition/ fees. I do not typically pre-state for NA because the test writers can articulate thousands of different assumptions the author must agree with.

A) The proposed explanation (aka it’s because low tuition/ fees) DOES NOT apply in this case.

Analysis: If the explanation—that the cause of the shrinking applicant pool is the low tuition/ fees—does not apply in this case, the whole argument is ruined. Think of how exactly the author draws his conclusion. He states that there is a possible explanation for this phenomenon and describes the purported causal mechanism (since parents/ students conclude the education is lesser quality). Note how I italicized possible. We have no idea if this explanation is in fact true. There could be hundreds of other explanations such as: the school has a horrible professor so people don’t want to attend in protest, the other schools offer better extra-curricular activities (or anything really). The point is that the author assumes that this one potential explanation is correct and then bases his entire argument on this assumption. Think about why in the hell the school should say “if we want to increase applications, we need to raise tuition/ fees” when the only evidence given is a possible explanation that does not even apply. The negation of this AC absolutely wrecks the argument.

B) The quality of a university education IS NOT dependent on the amount of tuition charged by

the university.

Analysis: This does not destroy the argument because the author need not agree that the quality of the education is in fact tied to tuition. The author is not saying oh well these other schools have a better education since they charge more. This is simply the assumption that the parents and students purportedly make in their conclusion that the quality of education they receive is lesser than the quality of education at schools with higher tuition.

C) An increase in tuition and fees at the university WOULD NOT guarantee a larger applicant pool.

Analysis: This answer choice is worded more like a sufficient assumption. The strength of the word “guarantee” is almost always going to make an AC like this on a NA question incorrect. Now substantively this question is wrong because despite it sounding like an assumption the author must agree with he/ she does not actually have to. The author does not assume that an increase in tuition/ fees would guarantee an increase in applications, he is just saying hey if we want do this thing we should really raise tuition. He does not assume anywhere that an increase in tuition would necessarily increase the applications.

D) There is AT LEAST ONE other explanation for the shrinking applicant pool.

Analysis: Nopeee. The author is not saying this is the only possible explanation. He just assumes it is true and then bases his argument on that. There could certainly be hundreds of other explanations. Put short, the author does not have to agree that the low tuition/ fees is the only explanation for the shrinking applicant pool.

E) The amount charged by the university HAS increased in recent years.

Analysis: This conflates relative to absolute. The university certainly could have marginally increased the tuition in recent years but relative to other universities it is still low. In fact, it could have increased tuition dramatically but the other universities still have way higher tuition/ fees.

Question Type: NA

Methodology: What must the author agree with? What, if negated, would destroy the argument?

Premise(s):

-Fossils from the extinct dire wolf were found in tar pits

-None of the discovered fossils came from pups under six-months old

Conclusion:

-So pups under six months old probably did not accompany adults while they were scavenging or hunting.

Pre-phase:

-What if the area surrounding these tar pits were infrequently—or perhaps never—used for dire wolf hunting and scavenging? The author makes a conceptual jump in assuming that the dire wolves hunted/ scavenged near the tar pits. The correct AC must address this gap.

A) What if the pups would have contributed to the success of the hunting or scavenging? This does not necessarily destroy the argument because the pups could have very well increased the overall probability of successfully hunting but they were still not brought along for reason X, Y, Z (literally anything).

B) Who knows…Negation would be if a dire wolf under 6 months became entrapped then it would not necessarily be better able to pull itself free than an adult wolf.

C) We do not care about other species.

D) Yes, but I don’t like this AC all that much. However, if this were negated it would destroy the argument. If the entrapment of dire wolves in the pits did not occur most frequently when they were hunting/ scavenging (say it happened when they were running away from predators), then how can we conclude anything from the lack of pup fossils about whether or not they accompanied adults?

E) What if the tar pits were not a favorite location? This AC just sucks.

Reflection:

This question was difficult because of the degree of certainty used in the conclusion. The author argues that the pups probably did not accompany the adults (that encompasses anywhere from 49%-0% likelihood that the pups accompanied the adults). Typically, NA questions have a much larger conceptual jump and conclude something with a higher degree of certainty (i.e the pups must not have accompanied the adults while scavenging). The test writers could have easily adapted this stimulus to reflect the frequent flaw of concluding from a lack of evidence of X that X did not occur. For pedagogical purposes, the conclusion could have said: So pups under six months old never have ventured near these tar pits. This would require an assumption that the thousands of dire wolf fossils (i.e the evidence) that were discovered are representative of the general population of dire wolves that hunted/ scavenged near the tar pits. The negation of this hypothetical would destroy the argument because we could not conclude that the pups did not venture near the tar pits if the evidence we have is not generally representative of the overall population of dire wolves.

This stimulus is based on an offset model. The author argues that there are two options X and Y. X will become obsolete because of all the advantages of Y. This is a very strong statement that only states the benefits of Y. To weaken this type of argument I need to distinguish X and Y. In this particular example, I could say that 1) answering machines have some advantage over voicemail or 2) voicemail has some disadvantage that answering machines do not have. Remember, the purpose is to call into question that answering machines will become obsolete not to show that they will be used more than the new voicemails. That is to say, I do not need such a powerful answer choice that places answering machines over voicemails, I just need some kind of uncertainty added to the conclusion. (D) does just that.

Interested!

Question Type: Resolve

Methodology: Need to clearly resolve the paradox in the facts.

Premise(s):

-TBT caused the native oyster population to be threatened w/ extinction.

-TBT removed, but the population of native oysters has not grown.

Pre-phase: TBT had some negative impact, but it could have had some positive impact for the oysters too. Now that it is gone, the positive impact and negative impact are gone so it is simply offset and the population is not growing as expected.

Cookie Cutter: Simple cause/ effect set-up here. If the cause is taking away, the effect should be taken away as well. So here since the cause was TBT killing the native oysters, we would expect taking away TBT to result in the effect of the native oyster population increasing.

A) This answer choice does nothing and has to do with the alternative cause that was already ruled out.

B) This does nothing. The native oysters eat different kinds of food than the barnacles? This could be correct if it said they eat the same kind of food as the barnacles on the boats because if TBT is taken away we would expect the barnacle population to surge, subsequently taking away from the food source of the native oysters.

C) Phrased weirdly, but does the trick. TBT killed imported oysters that competed w/ native oysters so now that TBT is gone these imported oysters are not getting killed off.

D) Okay?? We only care about TBT here.

E) Again, trying to get us confused w/ the alternative cause. The alternative cause of warmer water was already ruled out and TBT is no longer even in the water.

Question Type: PSA

Methodology: Trying to bridge premises and conclusion. Ideally, if we have if premises → conclusion, but could also simply be a strengthen type AC.

Premise(s): In order to enhance the downtown area, the city is building a majestic new subway station (ctxt). The current design does not include a connection to the waterfront. Adding this connection using the current design would make the station much more convenient to commuters but also would make the project over budget. The budget cannot be increased.

Conclusion: So a more modest station should be built so the tunnel/ connection can be included.

Pre-phase: Why do we care about the convenience granted to commuters? What if the majestic design would bring way more revenue to the city? Need something that says well hey actually convenience to commuters matters a whole lot.

A) No, the author is not trying to save money but is instead saying if we add in X (tunnel) it would be over budget so let's change the plans to include X. This does not mean the design would cost less than budgeted. It could cost the exact same.

B) The keyword here is consider. The author is not saying hey let's look at this tunnel addition, but is instead saying let's do this tunnel addition and trash the other plans.

C) Yes!! Spot on. This is cleaning up the argument by saying that actually convenience to commuters matters more than majestic design.

D) Nope, the second clause is factually inaccurate because the author is not saying abandon plans to build a station and is instead just saying let's do a new plan.

E) Any other project? What?? I don't know what they're even getting at here. Nope. Need something about convenience to commuters.