Is the webinar literally about speed and timing on the exam?

my takeaway: if you treat the second sentence as a conditional statement you will get this wrong.

Definitely interested.

despite the curve and difficulty ranking, I find 17 immensely tricky.

I read "line of least mathematical resistance" as a form of intuition!

Granted I haven't taken stats since high school, but contra JY, I would not interpret the statement "relationship is strongest" to mean a "steeper" correlation line vs a "flatter" one. I would interpret it to mean that all the data points fall closer to the correlation line.

#help

I'm caught up on the question stem.

I understand that B strengthens the support for the conclusion. But why should we assume that, just because a statement generally pulls in the same direction of a given argument's conclusion, it therefore was therefore not "overlooked" by the argument?

My common-sense-intuition is that you can have an argument that fails to take into account premises that strengthen it.

Suppose I make the following argument, about a donut: here's a donut has an enormous amount of sugar in it. Things with enormous amounts of sugar in them are bad for your health. So you shouldn't eat the donut.

Now suppose we introduce a new (true) premise: the donut has been laced with poison.

It seems like, by analogy/the logic of this problem, we'd be expected to say here that my argument does not "overlook" that the donut being poisoned. Huh?

Is this an example of the old LSAT being less carefully written? Or does this indicate that we generally ought to read "overlook" in these questions with the understanding "you can only overlook things that weaken your argument"?

As it evidently did for a lot of people, this question felt really odd (and off) to me. We are told that confidence is not important for accuracy. Therefore we need to take steps to avoid interfering with people's confidence, even though that will not affect their accuracy? wha?

By process of elimination, A is the only answer choice that adequately connects the premises in the stimulus with the conclusion in the stimulus. But I felt like I basically had to supply an extra unstated assumption; that a"even if people's confidence is orthagonal to their accuracy, we nonetheless should aim to avoid unduly increase or undermine any given person's confidence."

I try very hard not to question the question-writing, since it's not productive, but this one seems like a misfire.

just venting a little here, but but i'm finding some of the "application of principle" questions annoying. They often seem a lot less like "applications" so much as "logically correct restatements." The answer choices here are no more concrete than the stimulus!

I do not like what the test writers are going for in Q2.

Reading a sentence that reads "In a sense, this mixing of structures parallels the content of these autobiographies: the writers employ multigeneric and multivocal forms to express the complexities inherent in the formation of their identities" as a literal description of the authors' mental process ("motivating factors") is just not a very careful reading.

interested!

I think like JY and a lot of people have pointed out "many" is a major weakness answer choice C, as is "factory-" (which is really just there to be confusing but does limit the population of workers C is considering). I see a more fundamental issue. The stimulus has already told us "raising minimum wage will lead to more disposable income for a large segment of the population." To make C a good weakening answer choice, it pretty much needs to contradict the premise.

There is no doubt that the average number of rodent species members has to larger. But that does not guarantee that rodent species "tend" to have more members!

I read "tends" to refer to frequency, roughly meaning something like "in more instances than not." The average number, which we can get a very good sense of from the stimulus, tell us very little about frequency. What if there are in fact 1,000 rodent species with one member each, and 1 rodent species with 5 billion members? The the average members per species will be high, but in this world, rodents species "tend" to have a membership of 1.

Obviously this is an MSS, which means that B doesn't have to be airtight, it just has to be (most) strongly supported. But we are not "must be true" territory!

I find this easier to think through as A→/(B and C).

(Relativity Theory is Correct) → /(Travel Faster Than Speed of Light AND Travel Forward in Time).

Therefore, in the case of the Tachyon, if (Relativity Theory is Correct), then either (Travel Faster...) or (Travel Forward...) must not be true.

Same shape fits the correct answer C.

(Modern Medicine is Correct) → /(Brain Can Survive AND Brain without Oxygen For More Than a Few Minutes).

etc.

seconding a comment made below: I'm interested to know why "would" shouldn't be understood to be conditional. I tend to read it conditionally, i.e., "in the event the complex is completed, the economy will be strengthened."

#help