Congratulation!!!

#help How can A) excludes the fact that people can eat BOTH land animals and sea animals? It does not say anything about they ONLY eat land animals so I didn't think that it This consideration made me chose C over A... Am I overly obsessed with this only/both principle from logic class? How can I resolve this?

I fell on the question because I was on autopilot. E) shares similarities with the answer choices of alternative explanations of why fatality rate decline, and I presumed that it is an "alternative explanations" because I was not mindful of its strengthening effect on the argument. And yea LSAT writers will take advantage of the fact that we are sometimes on autopilots and fail to discern the fundamentals.

E) in correct. "keep its workers and use them more effectively, with a resulting savings of $600 millinon in its out-of province expenditures."

Increase in spending can come from saving out-of province expenditures, so that the province can pay for its workers and keep them. On the other hand, taxpayers get refunded with $600 million so that the province can have net increase in spending. In other words, it is not a zero-sum game as proposed in the premise.

I chose E because I assumed that rats did not produce symptoms does not mean that rats are not infected (rats can be infected without showing symptoms). Crap.:(

They often trick you with a "thus" in the sub-conclusion as the last sentence--don't believe that whatever introduced by "thus" is a conclusion.

A) talks about what PEOPLE THINK

B) weakening

C) correct. Paraphrasing comtemporarily melted

D) paraphrasing a sub-conclusion

E) paraphrasing a sub-conclusion

How is emotional appeal distinctive from the sentimental appeal that JY mentioned??? In my mind, they are almost interchangeable as one single logical fallacy. The stimulus is talking about respect for history, which I thought would fit into appealing to emotions pretty well...So I chose A over B. #help#help#help

yayyyy! Thank you!

JY's explanation is an overkill. To understand this simply, Laura made a typical sufficient necessity confusion.

Joseph: not been proved→either lying or mistaken

Laura: has been proved→/(either lying or mistaken): wrong, it could be proved, and the guy could still be lying or mistaken.

C is the only AC that picks up on necessary and sufficient conditions.

This is an old LSAT and the argument is less rigorous--we have to make some assumptions, so this problem probably doesn't provide as much value as other newer problems with more rigorous arguments.

poaching is prevalent. African wants to ban trade on ivory. Zimbabwe eliminated poaching and only carefully trade ivory by selection (the assumptions are that it relies on ivory trade as income and it has a pretty good conservation policy to ensure that the trade won't hurt the species). Zimbabwe objects ban on ivory trade. It argues that problems lie on conservation policy, not on trade.

A is great. Here Zimbabwe is adversely affected if the trade is banned.

B irrelevant

C international ban on ivory trade is not a matter of state sovereignty.

D irrelevant

E I chose this because I made an assumption that just because Zimbabwe eliminated poaching and has effective conservation policy, it would argue on this behalf. But the argument talks about banning the trade. To strengthen the argument, Zimbabwe would want to refute the matter of trade. E is not helpful.

To strengthen environmentalist's argument, we will find a way to say that methanol is better to the environment than gasoline.

Both gasoline and methanol when combusted will produce carcinogen, which is bad. gasoline-->benzene; menthanol-->formaldehyde. We will try to say B is worse than F, which leads to D) "F is a less potent carcinogen than benzene." That way combustion of methanol is not as harmful to environment as that of gasoline.

A, C: irrelevant

B: to choose B we have to make 2 huge assumptions: 1) the research efforts will produce fruitful outcomes 2)the outcome of producing cleaner gasoline is cleaner in the sense of benzene. We cannot make either of the assumptions.

E: we don't know if spills are relevant. Even if spills are relevant, we are not trying to do the opposite of undermining menthanol.

both food and suede vs. only food, no suede--"both food with suede" win

food only vs. suede only: "food only" win

preference: food and suede> food > suede (warmth and comfort)

I'm not sure if I am totally overthinking this or being overly rigorous. Although most of the debates are about how A is wrong because of proportion vs. number, I also think that it is naive to assume the more mature trees, the more fruits. The stimulus only tells us that they are related but does not tell us how they are related. Is it a positive correlation or a negative correlation? Like one of the folks said below, it could very well be a situation of overcrowding and trees force less fruit to grow.

In comparison, all other four answer choices have very clear indications of the directions of relationships.

Premise: mice eat more in labs than in natural habitats, restricting diet only reduce intake to the normal amount.

Conclusion: therefore the conclusion that caloric restriction increase life expectancy of North Americans is not supported.

How the premise doesn't support the conclusion: just because the "restricted" diet of mice is the optimal and normal amount, does not mean similar caloric restriction would not increase life expectancy if it is applied to North Americans. After all, mice live longer by eating less. The premise does not support the conclusion.

Essentially, the original argument uses analogy while mice and North Americans are not necessarily analogous, but dietary researcher's argument does not address the analogy issue. Therefore, if we make mice and North Americans analogous and say what applies to mice life expectancy also applies to North Americans life expectancy, the researcher's argument would be effectively weakened.

How failing to connect the concept of "seriousness" with the presence of airbags tricked you into choosing B...

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think the reason why C is incorrect is because of the oldest trick in the book: concern for self and not others->/J, but concern for others (negated) we don't know if it is justified (it could be either justified or not justified).

I don't understand how JY or others would find C "completely off" while I actually picked it. To me, the necessary condition to be met would be "many cold sufferers are not using the remedy"(as a statement of fact), hence establish the TRUTH OF CLAIM that the cold remedy is ineffective. Does anyone know how to prevent such automatic flawed reasoning?

#help (Added by Admin)

What is the one particular remedy referred to in answer C and by the proponent??#help

#help#help#help Why is con-incidence not an explanation?

C) does not commit to any other system of food forage.

E) makes you assume efficiency of a system. YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT EFFICIENCY just from the passage. You don't know what ants would do--they could just go home, letting alone talking about efficiency.

E) makes you assume that if you don' use pheromones, you are using something less efficent--WE DON't KNOW THAT!!!! STOP ASSUMING THINGS!!!!!

Ugh just being mad at myself for mostly I got MSS question wrong because I make assumptions.

#help According to JY's explanation, C) is incorrect because of "any". It could be that there is an event that does not have a conflicting chronology. But if the passage has added "some", it would totally make sense to me that "any" is wrong. But the passage has not. There is no indicator of range in the passage, which made C) very attractive to me... Can someone explain to me why how to understand C) is wrong? Should I approach it as because "any" is too absolute and there is a possibility of an event without a conflicting chronology?

What to do when you don't even have a common sense of how Bigbuck Lottery works...I just thought Sandy's reasoning is flawed because your chance of winning DOES get affected by the size of pot... sigh. So under timed condition, I went for C. In BR, I went for E. Both times I thought it was Sandy's mistakes...:/