How do we know that consumers polluting less = consumers purchasing less gasoline? I get how the second part of "C" is correct but I'm still unsure about the "Consumers will purchase less gasoline if..." Doesn't that require an assumption? How do we know that?

#help (Added by Admin)

Super tough - but it makes sense if you look at it real closely -- I've realized question 21 and 22 on a lot of pts are the most difficult so I tend to look at the question stem closely, wording of AC very closely, and keeping an eye out for traps. Just because I know these are the difficult questions.

I chose D but I glossed over "traces" -- traces are different from spikes.

I chose A but was stuck between A & E now I see why it is E -- such a subtle argument...

key:

impugning the motives = bad argument YET the commentator says it " just an attempt to please her loyal readers" which is impugning the motives (or talking about motives) to make an argument. LOL

Why is the commenter talking about her motives -- if that makes a bad argument....?? thus.. hypocrisy.

I saw this as more of a math equation (might help people who like to see things mathematically) --

A + B = A + C

(C) answer choice basically says C = 0 if C =0 then the equation is A + B = A and that means that B also equals 0 in that case. Which destroys the argument that B is not 0 (in other words a powerful tool).

That's just how my brain works -- hopefully it helped not confused anyone.

*Key word here: "kinds" talks about variety just because you have more kinds of things does not mean the # changed maybe you have the same # but the variety is better. From 2015-2016 the # of toy cars Joe possessed increased. Does the fact that Joe possessed more kinds of toy cars change the # of cars he had?

Correct loophole: What if it would have been worse without the preservation efforts?

I chose D, but it should have been B. A was tricky -- but the key problem is "able to" just because able to doesn't mean the scientists are doing it. Animal refugee is one of their "preservation effort" -- that is what required outside knowledge (kind of have to make that assumption) but B is my loophole: what would have been extinct are being saved.

Also, I start to overthink the easier questions because used to LSAT traps in the later questions.

THE FLAW: Just because you haven't fixed the problem -- solution it isn't working. Or still getting worse -- means the solution is not helping at all. That's not true -- maybe haven't fixed the problem but helping by a LITTLE.

I'm not sure if this makes a difference, but in #6 the domain is scientific technique and it says Prof. Lee's new technique. Does that make a difference? The fact that we don't know if its a scientific technique specifically? Do we just assume? #help (Added by admin)

It's a simple correlation/causation argument:

X (H) correlated with Y (A) so if you decrease X (H) then Y (A) will also decrease BUT what if C causes X (H) and Y (A) (outside alternative) or what if Y (A) causes X (H) so if you decrease or eliminate it won't affect Y (A)

KEY HERE: REVERSAL What if Alzheimer's causes H??????

Can there please be an explanation video posted for PrepTest B Section 4 Question 24. Thanks!

Is the modifier usually the sufficient condition in an argument? Or is that just a coincidence?

#help (Added by Admin)

I have the same problem!!

Read too fast thought A said “votes” not “voters.” Also key word here is fair representation but I also thought “interest of the families” is really important. If all the adults are voting are you sure it’s the interest of the families or just the adults in the family???

I think the key word here is acknowledging — we know that GS hired more editors to avoid factual errors but that has nothing to do with acknowledging factual errors. I don’t know how correct this is, but my thought process was what if the competitors just don’t acknowledge their mistakes as much as GS does. GS cares more to acknowledge their mistakes — maybe their competitor makes more mistakes they just don’t acknowledge their mistakes! Hence the editors are doing a good job.

The reason I knew it was E was because it said in the stimulus that the "only obstacle" is that Az refusing to sell. If this obstacle is eliminated then... that changes everything. And E said bankruptcy will force them to sell, hence removing that obstacle. So the "only" is what hinted at the right answer for me. Not sure if that is entirely correct though.

Not sure if this is correct, but the way my brain worked when looking at answer E, was that I just saw that cigarette smoking was another factor that was not considered in the second study. So, I thought that explained the discrepancy because the second study didn't consider that. May not be the best way to take out E. But, just how I processed the answer choice. Thoughts?

the key reason why D weakens is that they are ultimately willing to sell --> pay one and a half and if they are willing to sell only if an individual pays them one and a half, it shows that maybe they value it more???? so rather than how much they would pay for an item, how much they would sell it for means more about the item's value. super tough question... i was down to C and D while taking it and I chose C -- should have read carefully what D was saying