The sun is a star, right? that confused me to pick D....

THE ONLY lawyer ughhhh im a potato

Would you say that A is a weakening answer rather than a flaw answer. I can kinda see that if this was a weakening question instead, A would have been great. Am I right? #help

Hi, I have a question. #help

"Although withholding information from someone who would find information painful is sometimes justified, there is no such justification if the person would benefit from having the information."

What does the second part of this sentence really mean? Especially by "justification." Does it mean that a) if the person does benefit from having the information, there is "no such justification," meaning such acts can never be justified (i.e impermissible, never allowed) unlike the former case where there can be some cases that can be justified OR does it mean that b) if the person does end up benefiting from having the information there is 'no such need' for justifying (i.e requiring explanation). I think having a proper understanding of the meaning of that part screwed me up for this question.

#help

i think this question is tough b/c the right answer plays with our assumptions about the world. grr

This feels a bit like Necessary Assumption question.

Three acorns in the morning, four in the evening. lol

Is "it" from the conclusion "yet clearly it has created many jobs in the area" referring to the Bill that was passed 2 years ago or Plastonica the company?

#help (Added by Admin)

Thanks for the explanation. My id is Nanaimo because I like Nanaimo bars xD I live in Ontario. Nice to meet another Canadian tho! :)

Thanks for the reply. What prompted me to ask this question was LSAT 46 - Section 3 - Question 15 (Necessary Assumption Question). The correct answer for this question was "It is to the advantage of some individuals that they be concerned with contributing to societal good."

I skipped this answer choice b/c when I negated the statement in my mind, I translated it as

"It is NOT to the advantage of some individuals that they be concerned with contributing to societal good." And so, I understood it as meaning that "For at least one individual, it is not advantageous for him/her to be concerned with contributing to societal good." This negation didnt seem to affect the argument. After I was reviewing this question it came to my mind that the negation of the statement could also become "It is advantageous for nobody to be concerned with contributing to societal good." in which case, it would most definitely wreck the argument. Does the first interpretation of the negation statement wreck the argument too? (i.e "For at least one individual, it is not advantageous for him/her to be concerned with contributing to societal good.")

btw, I am reading your tips for 170+ and found it to be very insightful. special thanks.

favorite RC passage so far. I love me some good early modern English history.

dumb question. I am dumb too.

Hi, so C is preying on our assumption that "a recent tornado that devastated a small river town" was somehow not a highly publicized event compared to the highly publicized earthquake? When in fact, we have no idea from the info from the passage? (i.e psg didnt mention it but we cannot rule out the possibility, and therefore should not be assuming?)

I cannot quite agree with JY's explanation that we cannot assume C from the stimulus, b/c C's claim is too broad and the incident described in the stimulus is a single, isolated incident. Aren't all the answer choices asking us to make broad generalization from the single, isolated incident described in the stimulus? What are other reasons to eliminate C for sure? #help

this feels like a main point question after watching the video. hmm.

This is profoundly upsetting. :(

hello I have a question about this one. Is the answer technically both sufficient and necessary condition? #help

Hi! Thanks for the comment. :) I was a bit shaky on NA so it is a welcome help. I have a question for strengthening tho, do you think "Most people who got a tattoo ended up in jail" in fact does strengthen it? Since it does increase the likelihood that she "might" end up in jail after getting a tattoo.

Id say I run out of time more often in logical reasoning sections and sometimes RC (just shy of 2 or 3 questions).

no idea what mail order book club is.

stupid question.

#help I have a question. How can you infer from the stimulus that the argument presumes the opposite of answer choice D (i.e length of time is relevant to the recovery rates of the patients)?

The stimulus asserts that since both hospitals have similar rate of recovery but different average length of days patients stay at the hospital, University Hospital which has slightly longer average length of stay could "reduce its average length of stay without affecting the quality of care."

If I am understanding the author correctly, she is asserting that the quality of care at Uni Hospital would not suffer (or get better) even after the hospital made conscious effort to reduce the average length of stay. I am aware that quality of care is not exactly the same as recovery rate, nor the stimulus explicitly links those two ideas together, but wouldn't it be a fair assumption to make that quality of care in a hospital can potentially affect the recovery rate?

So how can you say that the author of the stimulus in fact assumes the opposite of D? While I see why C is right I don't quite seem to understand why D is wrong. Can someone please explain?

#help I have a question. How can you infer from the stimulus that the argument presumes the opposite of answer choice D (i.e length of time is relevant to the recovery rates of the patients)?

The stimulus asserts that since both hospitals have similar rate of recovery but different average length of days patients stay at the hospital, University Hospital which has slightly longer average length of stay could "reduce its average length of stay without affecting the quality of care."

If I am understanding the author correctly, she is asserting that the quality of care at Uni Hospital would not suffer (or get better) even after the hospital made conscious effort to reduce the average length of stay. I am aware that quality of care is not exactly the same as recovery rate, nor the stimulus explicitly links those two ideas together, but wouldn't it be a fair assumption to make that quality of care in a hospital can potentially affect the recovery rate?

So how can you say that "the author believes that the length of time is relevant to the recovery rates of the patients"? So then what makes D wrong? Is it the word "never" in D? Can someone please explain?