Same re score (kind of, wanted higher but this works too).

OMGOD, WE DID IT! Party emoji

Nope, not false choice.

It’s almost like bad conditional logic. If A then B and if not A then not B.

My last day on 7Sage, so I hope this helps you out.

Stim Summary: after factory closed, ^ in job-related injury claims by former employees. But reason to believe most claims = out to get claims not deserved / filed only to help job loss.

Ask yourself what is my job in this question?

In my opinion, your job is to find 4 AC that weaken the entire claim that most claims re injury are not deserving and only for aiding w-job loss.

Analysis: Is there a possibility that during the closure most people actually suffered injuries? What is “undeserving”? How about if deserving/claim includes/allows for = job loss help? How about if the claims were real?

a. Makes sense, they could only file claims after leaving job per this rule.

b. Makes sense, previously claims dismissed by managers are making a comeback to try to get their compensation.

c. Okay, this is what most workers do. Is that what these workers did? Why are you asking me to make these jumps? I'll come back to you.

d. Makes sense, they could only file factory closure to avoid any pay cuts.

e. Makes sense, these “most” workers knew that the factory was closing, i.e. job loss, so they actually suffered injuries. To be a little bit more clear, per your inquiry, factory wouldn’t close in 1 day, workers would get notice, which is what aligns this answer, therefore weakens the argument. This answer choice is giving you a reason that your initial analysis should be, "how abt if they actually suffered injuries?" and this answer choice gives you "yeah, they actually suffered injuries bc they got depressed from the news of losing jobs".

Looking at this analysis, C is the only one that feels very underwhelming, it doesn’t really knock out the argument. With weakening, you want to knock out the argument and C does not do that.

You should also notice language shift in C from all the other answer choices - all other answer choices align with the arg in terms of language, whereas C is very shifty and not really a punch.

Sorry for the long answer. Short answer to your question, yes.

Context is how I took it.

You may be panicking during test conditions. Record your test conditions, write down what you feel immediately prior, during and after the test.

You may be there conceptually and it is just mental stamina that you need work on.

@dustinbodnar12278 , sulked this morning, got angry in the afternoon and crushing it now!

Only if you have stared your challenge in its eye and kept your calm, can you conquer - said someone at some point in life.

Confused myself btw AC A and E, silly goose (me).

A. Arg misrepresents criticism re results of overzealous enforcement re intrinsic value of overzealous enforcement. What intrinsic value was spoken of? I confused it with enforcement = good. I helped the argument without even knowing it! ughhhhh

E. Arg defends overzealous enforcement by suggesting superiority to implausible alternative of this sort of enforcement. This makes sense. Bauer reaches for extremes to make his claim seem great. Overzealous enforcement and enforcement are 2 diff things, Bauer.

No, the last sentence states that if they guessed that next image = top, they would be right most of the time, whereas AC A says if they guessed next image = top, they were not basing guesses on pattern. AC A = conditional not triggered by stimulus.

Also, AC A is almost a contradiction of P1: "...series of images appearing usually [mostly] on top and sometimes on bottom and almost a contradiction to "...reported basing guesses on pattern they saw". This AC just does not make sense to me on so many levels.

Key words for sufficient assumption questions are "if assumed" / "if ... assumed".

C is wrong contextually. C talks about highly skilled RS, whereas the stimulus does not.

Also, the stimulus is not about how many each sector employs. It is about why government RS continue to work for the gov't considering there are higher paying jobs out in private sector. They work for gov't b/c of their sense of public duty and nothing else, that is what you are supporting.

Hope this helped.

Yes, few = some.

MT = SC

most Know MT = W

surprising that some Know SC = W

Next thought here should be: why is it that only some know SC = W as most Know MT = W?

Next thought should be: do most know MT = SC?

Knowledge of MT being a fake name for SC is out of nowhere. I mean this is saying some knew SC = MT. This thought makes sense in the outside world but not in LSAT world.

Per the stimulus, I still do not know which one is the fake name, so I cannot infer which one is the fake name.

The only conclusion you can go to is "knowledge that MT = SC?"

D: mayor will agree to tax ^ b/c that’s only how CC will agree to her proposal, which is her top priority.

E: mayor won’t get her proposal as its more imp to her that taxes don’t ^.

a. She will agree to increase. This is a contention btw them

b. Only way CC will agree to proposal is if she agrees to increase. Makes sense. D declares this and E implicitly concurs by discussing if proposal will pass rather than saying that D's criteria for proposal's passing is wrong.

c. Proposal = top priority. The issue of priorities is also point of contention btw them.

d. Mayor won’t get her proposal. This is what E says, D doesn't really say this.

e. More imp btw taxes and proposal = not increasing taxes. This is also what E brings up, D does not.

It is a conditional not introduced in the stimulus.

a. Degree of difficulty re making CM = good index of degree of difficulty re performing task. Good index? Huh?

b. Better we understand C’s ability re performing task, better we’ll understand our own ability to perform it. I think it is the other way around. Also, understand C’s ability? Stop it, haha.

c. C defeating chess champion should = indicator that C has true intelligence. Wow! I mean sure but not in this world. True intelligence was not introduced, stop making me giggle.

d. Less difficult to make CM process = better understood that process. Makes sense. So, reasoning tasks easier to make as we understand analytical capabilities of our mind better.

e. Shouldn’t underestimate usefulness of CM re study of human cog. I mean, What?! Cool, CM is great but where is that in the stim?

a. Mortgage lenders less likely to consider other risk factors when assessing credit scores. Other factors, aha! Don’t just look at the scores, think of other factors - look deeper! Don’t just look at the number of the score. Imagine the high scorers are high scorers b/c they had employment at the time but now their industry is facing depression and they are about to lose job? Think of other things, dude!

b. Credit scores reported = based on data sometimes have errors/erase relevant info. aha! so what you think is highest score could actually not be highest score but I feel that is negating a premise.

c. Credit score in part based on past history re paying off debts in full/on time. So this is what scores are based on in part. Does nothing for me.

d. For most, mortgage = much larger than other loans. Okay? Larger means what? What does this do? nothing!

e. Most potential borrowers = scores neither very high/nor very low. okay, that is cool, we are appealing to group size. I feel like you are almost there but did not nail it home with the group size argument. Eliminate the word “potential” from the sentence and you may have nailed it home.

*SCQ -> GA6

ACQ -> GA7

so,

If SCQ -> GA6, which means /GA7 -> /ACQ.

If ACQ -> GA7, which means /GA6 -> /SCQ.*

a. If GA /6 then ACQ. Wrong direction.

b. If /SCQ then ACQ. Wrong direction.

c. If GA6 then SCQ. Wrong direction.

d. If GA /7 then SCQ. Wrong direction.

e. If SCQ then /ACQ. Right direction.

a. Highest point will exceed alt of 5km. Will it? How do we know this? What if it does not?

b. LD can be detected in some regions where WR not available. Makes sense, data can be helpful where WR does not exist. Makes sense.

c. WR no less accurate in assessing alt of ash cloud than assessing alt of reg cloud. Reg clouds are not in scope.

d. Ash cloud exceeding 5km likely at least partly beyond reach of WR. So, we are now negating a premise.

e. LD no more frequent re large ash cloud than smaller ash cloud. What? Where did the comparative btw these 2 come in from? Stop it!

Only when the ground is hot, I will jump.

J -> GH

a. Fails to justify presumption that F’s objection based on personal bias. What personal bias?

b. Fails to diff btw relevant/irrelevant experience. I think this concept was not even touched on. Its not about relevancy, its about limitation that F was placing on the applicant’s consideration. Relevance is not discussed.

c. Confuses characteristic necessary for success w-characteristic sufficient for success. Chosen due to POE but makes sense as F says to be candidate -> need BE whereas G says BE should = success/candidacy and that didn't happen w-previous exec. You silly goose, G.

d. Bases conclusion on characteristic = always irrelevant re success on proof that it is sometimes irrelevant re success. So basis conclusion on background experience as always irrelevant on proof that it is sometimes (previous CEO’s experience) not relevant to success. I do not know where relevance comes in play. Its not about being relevant though. Its about limitations re experience. Stop trying to make me like the concept of relevance!!!

e. Presents only 1 ex of a thing as basis for broad generalization re that thing. Huh? What broad generalization?

a. B’s arg = quite unreasonable. If they were unreasonable then how is the performance on the same level as R’s? “as good as”

b. R’s arg more reasonable than B’s. Makes sense after POE.

c. Good debate perf = very reasonable args. I mean okay, but that is not introduced in the stimulus. Its about R and B.

d. Neither R nor B in full command of facts. I think B was in command and full command is lang not introduced. What is full command?.

e. Winning requires good command of facts. Winning? Its not about winning. Its about performance eval. Winning is not a concept introduced. Also requires? How would I know what winning requires?

Stim: ER = corp do all they can to pollute less. Our corp = falsely criticized as our current methods pollute much less than old methods and there are no methods atm that = no pollution.

Your questions to the writer should be: are you doing all you can to pollute less?, are there other things you can do to pollute [even more] less?

The writer tries to confuse by drawing comparison btw new and old methods and amount of pollution.

P.s. no, it is not attacking the premises as such premises did not exist in the 1st place. They left this open for you to attack.

Larger birds of age 9 more likely to survive than smaller birds of age 9. Stimulus has already established that this is not the case. This is also saying that age is not a factor whereas the conclusion is hinting that age is relevant and size is not.

With respect to strengthening, we are trying to get away from the size issue and more onto the age issue.

This question is a trick and a half. There is a shift in meaning from mined to consumed and the word "amount" plays a great role in carrying the vagueness. Once I overcame this issue, I took it as basic economics. Low supply = more demand. More supply = low demand.

'91 = low supply, therefore more demand.

'90 = more supply, therefore low demand.

Conclusion: '90 = amount higher than '91.

'90 amount (supply) higher = lower demand and '91 = lower amount (supply) = higher demand.

Hope this makes sense. This is one way of taking the the question, there are other math ways of taking it but this leads me to the correct answer choice as it puts every other answer choice out of scope. I made some assumptions, so some people may not agree with my methodology. :)

B is a generic statement that has been introduced in the stimulus already ("given the law of supply and demand").

You are to give the stimulus super strength re why prices are likely to increase. Answer choice to look for: High demand / low supply = high price.