The way I tried thinking about this confusing problem is that the conclusion in the stimulus tried stating : Not ( A->B) (A and /B). The premise should have demonstrated an instance of that, but instead the premise was showing and instance of (/A and B). So it is flawed. (Am I on the right track?)

Yeah I am pretty sure costs include things like time, effort, and can even be financial. Because this is their job, so their time is also money

same.... the fact it had no real conclusion was throwing me off

its kevin lin! he used to be a popular lsat tutor and posts videos on youtube, he recently joined 7sage!

just kidding literature doesnt equal research

for Q7: it states in the passage "there has been little research on long term purple loosestrife control", doesn't this count as explicity stated?

Im confused about Q7: Because its stated in the first paragraph that the major figures all worked under this premise " that art should incorporate images and familiar ideas as it commented upon the historic period in which it was created" - which led me to choose answer choice A. Am i misinterpreting the sentence. I figured that AC E was just discussing characteristics of murals more generally, and is true of any mural, whether or not it was a Mexican mural. #help

I enjoy the new explanation thank you, its easier to follow along. are there any examples in which " all that is needed" or the word " needed" actually introduces a necessary assumption

yup. This is the core of it, and its really easy to get lost in the stimulus and forget that this is the core of the argument

and i oop --

I would say for me what gave it away is that the premises do not have anything to do with accidents. Especially the last sentence which states ' These complex discoveries were a result of active study of natural processes'. This is a statement that the author takes as true, so it doesn't follow that the conclusion will then state that these discoveries are an accident, when they explicitly state it was a result of study. It just introduces too many new concepts that werent mentioned in the premise and are therefore E is unsupported within the confines are the argument.

The first step is trying to find common elements in the premise within the conclusion so you know that it could be supported. Hope that helps!

As to why B is wrong, the way I thought about it was that motivations of these individuals discussed in the stimulus have no real impact on the outcomes of their actions and therefore the argument. My motivation to write a newspaper column can be to get people to litter more, but its impact might be the exact opposite.

Just the act of them creating political theories and having them be out there can "in theory" ignite social change. Whether or not the academics who wrote these theories wanted to inspire political movements, doesn't change the fact that their mere presence has the ability to inspire such movements.

And as it stands these political theories are too convoluted in the eyes of the author -- regardless of what the intentions of the academics are.

So therefore, whether B is true or false it doesn't impact the argument at all. Also for B to follow the line of questioning you presented, its just too many assumptions you'd have to make for the answer choice to be right and eventually effect the argument.

Eeek sorry if that was confusing, but hopefully it helps. Usually when its an argument that descriptive like this I really try to be super skeptical about any answer choices talking about the motivations of people (its usually wrong in my experience-- UNLESS its explicit stated in the premise)

I had the same problem!

This is actually a good way to kinda see if the answer choice is right. The conclusion in is prescriptive (detailing how things should be), so it makes sense that the answer choice would mirror that. This in comparison the a descriptive claim/conclusion, which talks about the way things are. I would look more into prescriptive versus descriptive stimulus/ answer choices for the LSAT!

For those who are also struggling to see why E is incorrect. E uses causal language to describe a conditional logic flaw in the stimulus, which also renders it incorrect

This must be my 3rd time reviewing this question in the past 5 months and it still gives me trouble

"Plant life cannot survive without atmospheric carbon"

The two ideas are :

(cannot) survive : Since it says cannot survive, this is the negated version of survive so (/S)

atmospheric carbon: Atmospheric carbon in this statement is not negated so its (AC). The without in the statement is not negating carbon.

Because there is a "Without" we follow, negate sufficient.

If you choose to negate 'cannot survive' it will be 'survive'. It goes from /S -> S . 'S' is the sufficient condition, we then keep atmospheric carbon the same (C).

This written in If, then form would be : If plant life survive, then there is atmospheric carbon present.

Then it is : S --> C and

the contrapositive is /C --> /S (which is also what you get if you choose to negate carbon and make it the sufficient condition)

Essentially, when you negate cannot survive, it actually becomes the positive version of the statement, and map it as such. Hopefully its not too confusing, its hard to type these things out!

tehehe thank you! makes more sense now!

second this, Im coming back from finishing all the modules because I realized I need to really master this skill to score well and move fast

I think the issue is that a planet can be the size of earth, but not share the same characteristics. It could be a planet the size of earth, but similar to the environment of Venus. The stimulus also states in the first sentence " planet capable supporting life will be formed", which means that it doesn't really even correlate to the size of earth. Theoretically the size of the planet can be 3x smaller or larger. So size of the life supporting planet is irrelevant, E is also therefore irrelevant. Hopefully that helps a little!

I had some trouble with this question. I understand why E is incorrect, however I was not very attracted to answer choice A because it discusses what is morally right. I felt as though the passage really only focused on what is considered morally right, and the things that make an action morally wrong may not be the same as what makes actions morally right. I really felt like morally right and morally wrong are two separate concepts, and not just opposites of each other. And more generally, I guess it is confusing when to think of two concepts of being related but separate, and when we can say they are true opposites.

Sorry if this was confusing, but if anyone has any clarity that would be a huge help.

why isnt the "many" considered many when drawing the logic . In this sentence " A survey of 17 year olds has found that many who do not drink report having ...". And also which lesson this is to brush up on my formal logic