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

It's not the point, no, but I feel it's still worth pointing out- if not for LSAT accuracy, at the very least for accuracy in general.

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.

"apples: shittier peaches"

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

oh goodness, not math ):

The author can make a reasonable assumption that premises 1 and 2 apply to the residents of the nursing home, lending support to the conclusion.

Besides, it doesn't even matter how much the premises support the conclusion. It doesn't matter if they're crappy premises; your job is to find the conclusion.

To clarify, I do still think the conditional logic of "If A did not precede B, then A cannot be the cause of B" is useful. However, I think we should clarify that we're talking about conceptual precedence and not temporal precedence. Let's say the dolphins were showing up dead even before the chemical spill. While that would show that the phenomenon of dead dolphins is temporally prior to the chemical spill, it would also mean that it is conceptually prior. Conceptual priority seems to be presupposed by temporal priority. But it is primarily because the phenomenon of dead dolphins is conceptually prior that it cannot be the effect of the chemical spill.

Back to the cog example. Let's say that we separate Cog A from Cog B, and it turns out that Cog B is still moving without the aid of Cog A. Then we would know that Cog A's movement is not conceptually prior to Cog B's movement and that the former does not cause the latter.

#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 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

Not necessarily. The official "logical" definition of a word is often different from the common-sense usage

Thanks Abigail!

tricky one

Yeah both LR and RC test heavily on sufficient vs. necessary conditions from what I know

But researchers never assert that A is the absolute cause of B. They recognize that the scientific method is fallible and that they can always be disproven. Newton's theories were accepted until Einstein came along.

Scientists have a totally different goal than logicians. Scientists observe results and form causal theories (emphasis on theories), whereas logicians see what must be true by definition given a set of premises. Cause and effect just doesn't have the same kind of absolute nature that formal logic has.

I think it's because causal logic isn't as airtight as formal logic. The former is concerned with things that happen empirically and on the basis of observation- not as a result of logical reasoning per se.

"If I step on a lego, I will feel pain," "If I do not eat, then I will die," etc etc. They seem right.

But they aren't valid arguments. We only think they are "true" because of empirical observation. Technically, there's a chance- however small- that I won't feel pain when I step on the lego (because, say, I have no nerves there); and there's a chance that I won't die if I don't eat because I drank an immortality elixir or something. You see what I mean?

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.

I still don't see why it's not an argument. The linguist sentence PRESUPPOSES that traditional languages have existed throughout different eras and regions, which increases the likelihood of human communication being a universal phenomenon.

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).