I'm confused on how for question 20, (D) is not stated. It literally says it in the last paragraph. "In our ordinary moral thinking, , duties of truth telling are not justified merely when they produce good outcomes" Like what????

#help

I'm not quite sure I agree with (B)'s explanation that Carl doesn't talk about aesthetic quality. Even though it's not explicitly mentioned, I think it's pretty fair to assume that modernizing plays results in a loss of aesthetic quality because that's what Lyle said.

My reasoning for eliminating (B) was that while Lyle would disagree with this statement (he believes that it will INCREASE), Carl may be neutral. Carl says "It's of no use," which could be interpreted as "being neutral". In other words, modernizing does nothing for the usefulness in teaching history. So, in an extreme way, Carl will also probably disagree with this statement because neutral is not the same as "lessens"

On the other hand, (D) is correct because Lyle would definitely agree, while Carl would disagree. Using the same analysis as mentioned above, being neutral is not the same as being valueable.

I eliminated (B) because while the conclusion is "C being a cruel tyrant is being challenged" so the question of what kind of ruler C was is being questioned right now. (B) just assumes that C was cruel and a tyrant.

Want to give a shoutout to @DINOSAUR for giving a clear analogy.

I usually understand JY's explanation, but I refuse to believe that you can assume that someone "not developing something" is the same as "resisted that thing".

Does anyone have examples of questions that have trap answers like (B)?

#help (Added by Admin)

that's it. what the fuck

I think what would make (C) correct is if it had said "if the SHEATH does not regen within 3 months... blah blah blah" Would anyone else agree?

was honestly stuck on this question for a while and not sure if my thought process was the right one.

I choose (C) because it is the only answer that gives us a time frame of whatever the stimulus is telling us. "Since the invention of the cell phone" and "During the last century"

Slightly different approach from JY's that made me realize that (B) was wrong:

In the stimulus, we have two groups: aerobic and weight lifting and from the premise that aerobic did a better job that, it concludes that aerobic helps reduce stress.

If we negate (B), then we get "The people who did aerobics also did weight lifting"

So, this answer choice now updates our two groups: aerobics and weight lifting and just weight lifting.

Doesn't this sort of strengthen the stimulus then? If both groups were "exactly" (I say this loosely) the same, then it provides even stronger evidence that the aerobic activity actually helped reduce stress.

(E) is a better choice because instead of adding on weight lifting to the aerobic group, it introduces an unrelated factor in other exercises.

So, negating (E), now we have: aerobic AND other exercises and just weight lifting. If, this were the case, it weakens the argument in that it could have been the other exercises that reduced the stress and not the weight lifting.

Am i the only one who thought that public places and large public gatherings were sort of the same thing?

I was able to eliminate to A and C based off of the confusion alone (something is more than other thing)

what does significant mean lol

#help

I've recently been struggling with the higher PTs and I think this question really highlights what separates these later tests from the older ones.

While I was doing this questions, I was looking for something along the lines of "Lending to large companies stayed the same or also decreased." At this point, the conclusion did not mention interest rates AT ALL, so i eliminated every AC that talked about interest rates.

AC (A) is my prephrase in the most crooked path that I can think of.

In the past, I trained myself to try and really understand the stimulus (which I think is still really important) but now I'm going to start to read the ACs even closer.

Am I correct in assuming that (A) is incorrect because of the last part of the sentence "when deciding to accept a theory?"

I think if that part wasn't in the AC it could be correct?

#help

#help

can someone help me map out (A)?

Right now I have "motivated by concern for oneself" → "moral condemnation", which is close to the prephrase...

interested!

Would (B) be correct if it had said "fails to take in account the possibility that the argument relies on a sample that is..."

#help

I think (B) might be a sufficient assumption answer

#help

Can someone help explain the logic here? I thought that "no newspaper adequately covers all sides of every one of its stories" is Newspaper --> cover all sides which would include "important stories"

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I was able to eliminate (C) because the stimulus states that "participants in the first group reported exercising ON AVERAGE 1 hour longer each day". (C) says that those who were already highly motivated did not report any increase in exercise.

So who cares about that subgroup? I would honestly assume that to be the case actually. (C) being right doesn't take away from the fact that the AVERAGE reported time still increased.

On a very simple glance, where I think (A) and (D) are wrong is that (A) says "it will have a better chance at winning" and (D) says "examine more possible moves" where the stimulus only talks about "better chance at winning," which is what (C) says.

On top of that, while the stimulus is talking about the same program on fast/slow computers, (A) discusses same computers and (D) discusses two different programs

#help

I don't understand how Terry attributes "dishonesty". Where in the stimulus does it state that the insurance company is lying?

Another assumption for (D) that I thought was that there was not other way to sterlize plastic. What if there was another way for manufacturers to sterlize plastic without heating it? #help

How is answer choice (D) not just attacking the premise?#help

What made me choose (B) to begin with was the fact that (C) states "Many of the children..." I thought to myself "Okay, so how many is that, like 1?" and eliminated the answer choice because I thought it wasn't strong enough.

Lesson learned.

For questions stems like "weaken" for the most part the LSAT is asking for "the most weakener." So (even in a world where the other answer choices were even close enough to weaken the argument) even though I thought (C) wasn't strong enough, it was still the strongest weakener.