Summary:

- Conclusion: ---

-Why?

- Because of a lack of media coverage, Politicians are able to conduct their work secretively which causes local politicians to be isolated from their electorates

- This reduces the chance for local residents to engage in local politics and therefore feel more discouraged.

Question Type: MSS

A: "likely to elicit positive response" we just don't know that

B: We can't conclude that anything "should" happen

C: We don't know if it is the "most important factor"

D: "at least one source of discouragement" this is perfect because it's not too strong and it doesn't stray away from the information in the stimulus.

E: We can't say for sure that non-discouraged participation would have the effect of reducing politician isolation.

Summary:

- Conclusion: Trading my sports car in for a minivan would lower my risk of having an accident

-Why?

- My friends say I drive my sports to care recklessly

- However, I did research and found that drivers who drive minivans have lower accident rates that sportscar drivers

Question Type: Flaw.

A: This is the correct Answer. The type of people who drive minivans and the type of people who drive sports cars might be the actual cause behind the different accident rates rather than the actual cars themselves. The argument assumes the cause for accidents is the type of car itself rather than that being a mere correlation.

B: It never mentions details about the sample.

C: The conclusion says "lower my risk" it never uses strong language like "certainly prevent." So this was never the flaw of the argument, this answer choice is incorrect.

D: This was never used in the argument. There was no sufficient or necessary condition.

E: This was never mentioned as well, we don't know which source the data was gathered from.

Summary:

- Conclusion: ---

-Why?

- Researchers who are able to prove conventional wisdom wrong are able to gain substantial notoriety and fame.

- Very few find evidence that global warming is likely.

Question Type: MSS

A: "Not acting in accordance" This was never mentioned anywhere in the stim.

B: "Substantial Motive" this is true, it was mentioned in the stimulus when it said " recognition by overthrowing conventional wisdom"

C: This was never supported anywhere.

D: "not offered any alternative hypothesis" that is too strong of an answer and hard to prove with the available information.

E: "Primarily driven driven by a desire for recognition" We don't know what drives people based on the available information.

Summary:

- Conclusion: "Therefore one cannot be obligated both to answer all questions truthfully and to keep all promises."

-Why?

- If someone asks me to keep a secret and someone else asks me a question about that secret I cannot answer that question truthfully without thereby breaking that promise to keep a secret.

- (The argument is pitting two things against each other [keeping a secret] and [answering questions truthfully] and demonstrating how both those things can't hold)

- (The correct answer choice is going to take two things and show how they both contradict/ can't be kept together).

Question Type: Parallel Method of Reasoning.

A: This is the correct answer choice. It takes two things [civility] and [saying whatever we want] and saying these two things are incompatible with each other.

B: This doesn't take two things and show how they both contradict.

C: This answer choice somewhat shows a contradiction between two qualities, however, it fails to conclude that it's not possible to contain both of these qualities at the same time.

D: This doesn't take two things and show how they both contradict.

E: This answer choice introduces the third quality and says that it causes the other two qualities to contradict each other. That is not what the stimulus argument did.

Summary:

- Conclusion: M contains twice as many cans as L

-Why?

- All the aluminum cans in L have been recycled into M

- 50% of the aluminum contained in M was recycled from L

- Any other ingredient other than Aluminum is negligible.

Question Type: Sufficient Assumption

A: This doesn't justify why M contains twice as many cans as L

B: Again this has nothing to do with what the conclusion said.

C: This would make it possible for the conclusion to be true. If L contains 50 cans of aluminum for example, then this means that all of that 50 gets recycled into M and that still only accounts for half the aluminum present in M. This the correct answer choice.

D: This is also irrelevant.

E: The argument isn't concerned with other materials.

Summary:

- Conclusion: Ocksenfry food really is nutritious

-Why?

- The Connerly Report suggests Ocksenfry food is devoid of nutrition

- However, Connerly Report was commissioned by Danto foods which is Ocken's largest competitor

- The Connerly Report has to submit its article for approval to Danto's public relations department.

- The report is biased.

Question Type: Flaw.

A: This is correct because the conclusion takes evidence of the report's biases and suggests that the opposite must be true.

B: Never mentions anything about a sample.

C: Irrelevant.

D: This isn't the flaw of the argument

E: The argument was clearly able to show in its premises how the report would have been biased.

Summary:

- Conclusion: Not all efforts to increase productivity are beneficial to the business as a whole

-Why?

- Attempts to increase productivity decrease the number of employees

- This harms the dismissed employees and the retained employees' sense of security

Question Type: Main Conclusion

A: This is close but the conclusion never said anything that's not good for the business's employees is not good for the business. This AC is too strong

B: This correctly paraphrases the argument's conclusion, "Not all ..."

C: "Employees of business are its owner" was never mentioned anywhere in the argument

D: This is also irrelevant and was never mentioned

E: This is just repeating a premise, it is not the conclusion.

Summary:

- Double-blind techniques should be used

-Why?

- They help prevent misinterpretations that might arise from scientists' expectations

- And scientists should be diligent to avoid misinterpretations

Question Type: Main Point

A: This doesn't say anything about "scientists should use double-blind techniques"

B: This paraphrases "scientists should use double-blind techniques" and is the correct AC.

C: This isn't the conclusion of the argument

D: This also doesn't paraphrase the conclusion accurately

E: This doesn't include that scientists should use it.

Interested!

Hello I’m interested in joining as well if it’s not too late

I'm interested as well

They only consider the highest score, however if there is a big gap between your first and second score you should consider writing an addendum explaining that gap.

How would we use assumptions for these question types?

#help

Could AC D also be a necessary assumption if you negate it?

#help

Im interested

Hi There,

I think you're best bet is to focus on the weak areas you are currently struggling in and try you're best to improve in those. Going through the whole course again would be time consuming and a little inefficient. I think you should take a couple of practice tests to get a good sense of what you're weak areas are and try to drill and review them with some help from tutors/ experts. Maybe they could teach you a different method you haven't considered.

Also to find tutors I usually go online to this website wyzant and they have a list of LSAT tutors whose price range is usually between $60-$100/hr. If that's too pricy I also found this online LSAT class that charges $5-$10 for a class. Also you can always find videos on youtube or go online and find a good description for free.

Hope that Helps, Good Luck!

Admin note: posting links to other services are not allowed. You can find more information in our Forum Rules.

Interested!

I think you should try to focus on using one resource at a time. I've just been using 7 sage for all of my lessons and practice tests and its been working out well for me.

Interested!

I'm still confused with answer choice E. The passage states that Endosymbiosis applied to the nucleomorph of that specific plant. To make answer choice E correct it would require us to make the assumption that the nucleomorph undergoing this process made it possible for this specific plant to grow. Can anyone offer any additional explanation for why E is correct? #help

I think what made answer choice E attractive to me was conflating "popularity" as something "long lived"

Summary:

- Conclusion: Designer interaction with consumers is superior to survey data

-Why?

- Survey data may provide information on why a certain feature has a low rating but lacks suggestions on how to make it better

- The data does not explain how that feature needs to be changed in order to receive a higher rating.

Question Type:

A: This is the correct AC. The thing that needs to be justified is that consumers can do something that surveys lack. This Answer choice encapsulates that by saying that consumer input can lead to a successful design, unlike survey data.

B: This doesn't do anything to the argument.

C: Doesn't do anything for the argument.

D: This isn't true for the car features that already do have high ratings and haven't been consulted by consumers.

E: The argument never made a distinction between internal and external features.