Case in point: Mike Tyson has THREE pet tigers.

Tiger:

Not every philosopher believes in God. After all, Sartre is an atheist.

Disney:

Students who have completed high school can go to elite colleges. Those who had straight As in high school can get into elite colleges. All others must have rich white parents. George is a student who has completed high school. He goes to an elite college but had straight Cs in high school. Therefore, George must have rich white parents.

Fat Cat:

A girl is walking on campus with a big bouquet of roses. It is Valentine's Day. A boy can be seen looking at her from the distance. The boy has a kiss mark on his cheek and is smiling triumphantly. Therefore, the boy gave the roses to the girl for Valentine's Day.

This sort of reminds me of Hegel's dialectic (shoutout to fellow philosophy majors).

The premise and the conclusion are mutually supporting and have a two-way relationship. The one is found in the other, and neither can exist without the other; in a similar sense, Hegel's thesis and antithesis mutually support one another and cannot exist without the other (despite being contradictory, though in this case the premise and conclusion are not contradictory).

"apples: shittier peaches"

Yup. Apples are to peaches what rats are to squirrels.

oh goodness, not math ):

#feedback

The philosophical logic here is incorrect. Causes don't always precede their effects (in the temporal sense that this article seems to assume). Causes always conceptually precede their effects, yes, but not always temporally.

For example, consider the cogs of a machine. Cog A moves Cog B. Does this mean that Cog A's movement occurs before Cog B's movement? No, of course not; they move simultaneously.

While it's true that an effect cannot occur before its cause, it's possible for causes and effects to occur simultaneously. In fact, philosophers make a distinction between vertical causality and horizontal causality. The former refers to causal chains where each element occurs simultaneously, and the latter refers to causal chains where elements occur in temporal succession.

Coincidence of movement, spatial relationships, etc are other ways besides temporal succession that people can infer cause and effect.

I'm not sure how important this correction is for the purposes of LSAT prep, but this did bother me a bit and I wanted to write a comment.

"What can be done to improve social and economic mobility?"

Answer: The liberation of the proletariat and the establishment of a communist society.

Most astronauts are strong. Most astronauts like space. Therefore, some strong beings like space.

A‑m→S

A‑m→LS

Therefore, S←s→LS

Most books are paperback. All paperback books smell good. Therefore, most books smell good.

B ‑m→ P → SG

B ‑m→ SG

Another reason E is wrong: we have no idea if any antibiotics were even used against bacteria X anyway

tricky one

The reason I chose E is because I thought negating it would hurt the analogy. In the lawyer scenario, you have a choice between the expensive, more tailored lawyer and the cheaper, less tailored DIY software. But my reasoning was that if "there is NO way for an ill person to get a valid prescription without first consulting a doctor," then the patient has no choice but to choose the doctor, which defeats the analogy and thereby hurts the argument.

I think the problem with this answer choice is the "without first consulting a doctor" part. It could be the case that the patient can only get a prescription after consulting the doctor but it wouldn't hurt the argument that the doctor is worth paying rather than just leaving after getting the prescription.