Another trivial flaw: Just because no officer in the precinct has taken gifts, it doesn't mean that no other people in the precinct have taken gifts. ie) janitors could have taken gifts.

Negation of NA is to wreck the argument, meaning wrecking the premise’s support to the conclusion. We’re not trying to wreck the conclusion itself. The conclusion may still be true because of numerous other factors.

(P): Most people oppose tariffs.

(C): Therefore, if the politician voted against tariffs, he would be more likely to be reelected.

Negation of (A): Supporters of tariffs are significantly more likely to base their vote on tariffs. Opponents of tariffs are significantly less likely to base their vote on tariffs.

Now, it could still be the case that the politician would be more likely to be reelected if he voted against tariffs (i.e. regardless of his stance on tariffs, he gets more votes on other issues), but it’s certainly not because most people oppose tariffs; even if they oppose tariffs, they are not going reflect that on their vote as much as supporters of tariffs. (to a significant degree) Thus, the premise’s support to the conclusion is wrecked.

https://lsathacks.com/explanations/lsat-preptest-77/logical-reasoning-1/q-24/

You should also read this explanation. Hope it helps!

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/9481/establishing-a-correlation

Another trivial flaw in the stimulus is that we do not know whether Lester works at Leila’s Electronics. Technically, we cannot just straight assume Lester works there just because the sentence about him is stated afterwards. If Lester works for another company, all the conditions in the first sentence become irrelevant.

@jhaldy10325 Very different.

Does statement 1 establish a positive correlation between chocolate consumption and depression? (JY says so in PT72 S2 Q14 explanation)

If so, why does JY say the statement "Ones who improved the most were the ones who learned to write the most automatically" in PT47 S1 Q26 does not establish a correlation?

Thank you so much for your help!

My question is not whether "low/middle range chocolate eaters are equally or more likely to feel depressed than those who ate the most"

I'm asking what if "low range chocolate eaters felt more depressed than middle range chocolate eaters"?

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-47-section-1-question-26/

For the question in the link, if you could take a look at the video explanation,

(C) is a correct answer because it gives us more data points thus allows us to establish the correlation.

Which means the stimulus as it stands (ones who improved the most -correlated with- ones who write most automatically) does not not yet establishes a complete correlation.

Could you take a look at this and let me know what you think?

Just to clarify, the power plant is not at a stoplight. The car is at a stoplight.

At a stoplight, the car is moving at the speed of 0.

which is analogous to..

(D) the power plant is emitting 0 pollutants. (Yes, I think it's probably paused)

(A) is a correct answer choice only because the Qstem asks which one most helps to explain the discrepancy.

Like amipp170 said below, we do not know if the deer in the stimulus were a part of 'most wildlife' in (A).

I got tripped up by (C).

When a vehicle is at a stoplight, its speed is 0, which is analogous to a power plant emitting 0 pollutants.

I chose (C) by mistakenly swapping the idea of speed for the idea of pollutant emission, thinking cars do emit low pollutants at the stoplight.

Steve Jobs..

The stimulus states, "Two pairs of yearling ostriches and one acre of similar land are enough to begin ostrich farming."

The sufficient condition to begin ostrich farming is 4 ostriches and 1 acre of land. So technically, the start-up cost for ostrich farming does not have to include other farming devices/costs that you've mentioned.

Notice the stimulus makes a distinction for cattle ranching. It states, "Starting out in cattle ranching requires a large herd of cows, one bull, and at least two acres per cow."

The necessary condition to begin cattle ranching is a herd of cows + bull + at least 2 acres of land per cow.

In this case, there could be more necessary conditions for starting up cattle ranching such as other farming devices/costs that you've mentioned.

The stimulus states, "The start-up costs for ostrich farming are greater than for cattle ranching."

This means..

start-up costs for ostrich farming (4 ostriches + 1 acre of land) > start-up costs for cattle ranching (herd of cows + bull + at least 2 acres of land per cow + possibly other farming devices/costs necessary)

Therefore, (A) is most strongly supported. 4 ostriches have to be more expensive than a herd of cows + a bull.

P.S. I guess the start-up costs for ostrich farming could also assume additional farming devices/costs, in which case (A) does not have to true. I think that is why this question is MSS, not MBT.

@solkahlerrios847 Are many of you applying for the December LSAT before the Oct 18 deadline, despite not knowing your score until, perhaps, the 20th?

I registered for the December exam in case my preferred test center gets filled up. I'm going to withdraw the exam if I like my September score or take the exam otherwise.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-39-section-2-question-05/

Interesting that the difficulty ratings differ significantly lol.

I thought (C) was wrong also because it qualifies day-care workers to have to work as employees of day-care centers. What if people work as freelance day-care workers without being employed by the day-care centers?

By saying “Why isn’t it a necessary assumption that hairless dogs were not introduced to both regions from some third region,” are you asking why (A) is not a necessary assumption? If you are, (A) is not saying the same thing.

Negation of (A): Some hairless dogs have been found somewhere other than the two regions. (i.e. Spain)

Like JY says, so what if hairless dogs were found in Spain? What if they were transported to Spain from the two regions? It is completely consistent with the argument, thus (A) is not a necessary assumption.

I do think however, “Hairless dogs were not introduced to both regions from some third region” is a correct, alternative necessary assumption.

1. Those who ate the most chocolate were the most likely to feel depressed.

2. The more chocolate one consumed, the more likely he/she felt depressed.

Aren’t these two different in meaning? Because for the first statement we don’t know what happened to the middle/low range chocolate eaters..

But we still translate both of them as..

Chocolate Consumption –positively correlated with– Depression

Thoughts?

P: Marxism should be regarded as a scientific theory.

C: Marxism should not be interpreted as a political program.

Fill in the gap between the P and C by simply stating P->C.

(D) does it. Scientific theories->cannot be interpreted to be political programs. By assuming (D), the argument is now valid. (correct SA answer)

(B) is wrong because 1) it talks about science in general while the P is about scientific theories 2) it talks about people while the C is about political programs. (B) does not connect the P to C which is what we need.

I fell for (E) as well.

I think it’s not a sub-conclusion simply because [some dinosaur species living in below freezing temperature] does not support the idea that [only warm-blooded animals could survive in below freezing temperature] at all.

However, with these two separate statements each taken as true, we can infer that dinosaurs were warm-blooded, which in turn supports the argument’s conclusion. (Premises)

Like JY explains, we just take [only warm-blooded animals could survive in below freezing temperature] as true with no support given for that fact.