Should I put any emphasis on the difference between "obligated" and "should"? In LR, "should" is a key component of an argument's main conclusion, and it's often found in causal reasoning or non-conditional reasoning. The difference is that "should" is not "must." Where "obligated" is more like "must." I believe I've seen a few LR questions that conclude with an "obligation" which is a strong main conclusion, much stronger than a suggestion, which makes me believe it is more in the "must" or "always" or "necessary" family.

I say this because answer (A)'s point is "obligation" where answer (B) is "should" or a suggestion.

Invaluable means valuable...

"Inflammable means flammable? What a country!" - Dr. Nick (The Simpsons)

Yeah, it's reverse causation. Snell and Barbu conclude that the Greeks understood and practiced an understanding of individual autonomy, and that the play is proof. More specifically, Barbu uses Snell's interpretation of the play to come to her conclusion. So she sort of piggy backs off Snell. Yet no where do either Barbu or Snell say that the play itself caused the Greeks to practice individual autonomy. Rather, it was the Greeks already practicing it that perhaps led to the play. Snell and Barbu think the affect is proof of the cause.

Love the advice!

The harder questions, those needed to break 170, absolutely depend on discerning whether the reasoning is causal or conditional. You'll sometimes have a conditionally worded question but the argument is chronologically structured, so it's actually a correlation/causation question. Then 3/5 answers are all conditionals, two are causal, but only one of them is actually chronological. I mean, to say that the distinction between the two is useless, it's just really setting up people to fail.

Yeah this is a terrible take. Don't follow this advice unless you're happy in the 150s or 160s.. Knowing and applying the difference between conditional and causal logic will help you avoid all the wrong answers and time traps this dude is going to fall into.

> Complains about not seeing all answers prior to lesson

> Gets all answers in formal logic

Yeah I agree. I suspect the amount and intensity of conditional reasoning to go way up post-August.

The MC says that people are "completely ignoring" health recommendations. So it wouldn't necessarily matter if you they eat way more red meat way at restaurants than at home. As long as they are not "completely ignoring" the advice.

It's probably best if you try anticipating the answer before you see it. Answers serve to mostly confirm your anticipated paraphrase. Rarely do answers themselves give any additional insight.

I'm probably very late to this party, but I hope a more simplistic explanation helps.

The stimmy correctly reasons through the contrapositive of the rule only to conclude that the contrapositive prescribes an action.

The argument goes:

It is reasonable for the courts to allow DNA evidence only if there is widespread scientific agreement. There is NOT widespread scientific agreement, therefore it is not reasonable for the courts to allow DNA evidence. So we should not allow DNA evidence.

Alright, but just because something might not be "reasonable" does not mean that we shouldn't use it. The ambiguity and possible assumption loophole is in defining what the argument means by "reasonable." The author assumes that once we take the contrapositive and the principle necessarily concludes that since there is no widespread agreement then it is not reasonable to use DNA, then we should not use DNA.

The way I thought about it was that (C) is the only answer that touches on this error, and gives an alternative view of "reasonable" that the argument had not considered. (C) for me said that two minds could reasonably agree about something while disagreeing about another. Meaning, two minds can accept one thing and not accept another. But this doesn't mean we "should" outright deny its use based on the fact we cannot all come to a widespread agreement and cannot reasonably accept.

Yes, there is. I believe that on the practice test you can click on the time clock in the right hand corner and it turns off. Or I believe you can set the timer to infinity before you start the PT.

I feel weird that I answered it right so fast. I'm having imposter syndrome or something.

I just listened to an LSAT podcast today that prescribes turning off the clock and doing every lsat question without worrying about time basically until you hit the 170s. That's what I decided to do starting today. So I wouldn't worry about the clock as much as I'd worry about accuracy. Accuracy builds speed, not the other way around. I'll let you know how that works out lol

Oh yeah, for sure. I agree that it can be confusing. For me it's a translation suggestion for after I recognize its a causal argument. If I recognize conditionality, however, I try to strip the sufficient and necessary components down to one or two word or variables. I guess all this to say is that a majority of this exam is quickly and accurately translating the argument into our own words. Hang in there though. We got this!

Yeah, I struggled identifying causal reasoning when it was presented as conditional reasoning, too. Several clues that helped me distinguish the difference were that causation is heavy on probability and likeliness. Take a look at the active causation words like "avoids", "increased" "maintaining". In my BR, and now more in my timed drills, I'm actually adding "causes to" better describe what is happening. So for example, "If one avoids eating dairy one is less likely to eat fat" is translated to "If one does not eat dairy (avoids), then this will likely cause one to eat less fat." This way, I know that "avoiding" causes one to eat less of something else. The MC: "Therefore, not eating dairy will likely cause you to have good health."

Another way to distinguish causal from conditional is by the way the conditions approach chronology. Causal relations fixate on chronology, while conditionals fixate on bridging conditional indicators. Causal reasoning assumes that if one thing happened first then that thing probably caused the thing that followed it. This is a super common causal flaw. Of course, one way to weaken this assumption is to show that the chronology is off. Maybe later you'll see that at times chronology within conditionals changes the argument from conditional to causation.

Hope this helps!

Yeah I made this assumption too and prayed it was a reasonable assumption and not unwarranted

Same. I picked (D) during the timed session but then switched to (A) in BR because (D) was too strong. It was very SA. Unfortunately we got out of one hole to go right into another. At least the reason to abandon (D) was correct!

Catbelly, this is what I noticed too and why I got the answer wrong! I was pretty confident I got the answer right timed. But yeah the argument relies on an assumption between "varying contexts" and "should use colored paper."

Nah, the conclusion is the whole thing starting with "So." It's a conditional conclusion with a blended recommendation based on an assumption that focus only on advantages but no disadvantages (cost-benefit analysis).

The simple explanation is that the argument assumes that Homo Sapiens and Modern Humans have similar DNA. So if Homo Sapiens interbred with Neanderthals, we could reasonably conclude that there should be some DNA continuity between Homo Sapiens, Neanderthals, and Modern Humans. The fact that there is almost no continuity between Neanderthals and Humans shows then that Homo Sapiens did not interbreed with Neanderthals.

AHHH but wait. What if Homo Sapiens and Humans actually do not have as similar DNA as Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals? What if there is more continuity between Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals and not humans. What if Neanderthals are closer to Homo Sapien DNA and Modern Humans are WAYYYYY different than those two. We assume that because Homo Sapiens are ancestors that we must have similar DNA.

BUT if its actually the case that Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals have similar DNA not necessarily related to Modern Humans, then Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals could have interbred and we wouldn't know the difference because there wouldn't really be a difference of DNA.

This is why answer (C) MUST BE TRUE. It has to necessarily be the case that Homo Sapien DNA and Neanderthal DNA are NOT similar, i.e. is different (and probably more similar to humans). Otherwise, we couldn't conclude that they didn't interbreed.

Hope that makes sense.

It's implied twice via a concession "One should act confident even if one is truly not confident in one's skills" and by a comparison "success is more obtainable to those who believe they can succeed THAN by those who have self-doubts, i.e., are not confident in one's skills."

One of the most important skills to master on the LSAT is accurately paraphrasing the premises and conclusions in your own words without making unwarranted assumptions. Just takes a lot of time and practice.

In SA, yes. Because you want to 100% prove the conclusion. "Usually" does not hold to the 100% standard, so it weakens the answer out of validity.

Below is my BR analysis. Hopefully it's helpful so forgive my typos and me talking to myself in the text.

I got this question wrong

(Agree)

MOW: K: As population increases, the more land will be used for urban and food production, and less land for wildlife. H: Yes, I agree that population is increasing, and that will increase the need for urban and food production, but don't overlook technology improvements that will increase food production and NOT SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE the PERCENTAGE of the world's land.

Notice that the disagreement might be between the % and # discrepancy. K is also silent on the technology part. So she neither agrees nor disagrees.

Notice that the # to % alludes to the disagreement that technology improvements will cause humans to use less land.

Assumptions: Technology will compensate for land expansion. Agriculture means food production. More agriculture means less land.

Why was the answer choice you made so tempting? (D) Was tempting because it seemed that both K and H agreed that the increase in human population will require an increase in the world's land devoted to agriculture. The reason being is that H says that tech will increase agriculture without SIGNIFICANTLY increasing % of land. So indeed I thought he agreed that land was going to be required, just not to the extent that K perhaps assumes.

Why is it wrong (why don't they agree?) I believe that it's very subtle, but the reason they don't agree has to do with what K's MP. K says that there will be less land for FORESTS AND WILDLIFE not agriculture. In other words, we assume that more agriculture means less land for forests and habitats. Also, we assume that food production means agriculture. But more land for food production could also mean meat factories, etc. Then H comes along and says, "hey don't worry we'll just have more food factories and that will prevent us from significantly increasing the % of land. (D) says that in the next half century, habitats will be eroded. Does H agree? Not necessarily. He's quiet about habitats. Notice how he says we will use less AGRICULTURE. This is us assuming with K that agriculture uses most of the land. That's what H is assuming too. H is assuming that what K is worried that more food production = more agriculture = less habitats. What H says is less agriculture = less land for agriculture, but never explicitly makes the leap from less agriculture to more habitats.

Why is the correct answer not appealing? What made you skip it? For me, this answer is correct via POE. But you have to see the disagreement in (D), and you must see the assumptions made by H about K's argument. But even if you see these assumptions, it's still difficult to pick the right answer. Maybe all answers now seem incorrect. So then I perhaps picked (D) because it seemed to address some of the common issues. With time running out it's easy to throw away my reasoning and the assumptions made and just say "well then that can't be right. Maybe I'm wrong." Yes, you are.

Why was it right? Why did you not notice that part of it? So in (B), H doesn't seem to explicitly agree with this choice. That's what makes this question so difficult, and why (D) is so attractive. But (B) is correct because of the last sentence "would be beneficial." Do K and H think that more efficient and innovative food production would be beneficial? Yes! Both WOULD agree with that. This is like saying S and M want ice cream, but one thinks dairy is problematic and then the other says well you can have creamer. At the end of the day both would agree that they want ice cream. In (B) both would agree that as long as less land is used that would be beneficial.

I'm just a POE boy.