Interested !!
Hi,
I believe the question you ask would help find the correct AC for this question.
AC D: Telephones are used by most people in the industrialized world.
Our task for this question is to find an AC that does not strengthen the given argument.
And asking "what if the patients do not use telephones (=follow the trend)?" can show that AC D is the correct AC for the question. Because AC D does not guarantee that the patients in the argument use telephones. Or it can be like we have no information that the patients are from the industrialized world.
Hope this helps!
Hi,
I think the question stem clearly shows it is a sufficient assumption question.
The conclusion of the argument follows logically "if" which one of the following is assumed?
"if ... is assumed" is a sign for sufficient assumption question.
Hope it helps!
Hmm.. I think your question is quite difficult to answer, but I'll try it!
I understand what you mean by
"all actions" = socially unacceptable + socially acceptable
and
there is a gap between "criminal actions"(unacceptable) and "all actions"
But, this question is asking what the flaw of the argument is.
The analysis of terms you gave is based on a premise of the argument.
Only the first sentence, which is one premise of the argument, has such terms.
I don't think the above analysis can be applied to the first premise.
it is just saying that "criminal actions" have similar features "like all actions," which is in this case
=> "products of the environment that forged the agent's character"
I think it is okay to do so.. it is merely describing "criminal actions," and it doesn't have the logical flaw that AC B is actually saying.
As you mentioned you understood why the correct AC is correct, once you can see what AC B is saying is not what it appears to mean, it would be clearer now that AC B doesn't show the flaw of the argument. Because it is about one premise of the argument, and it doesn't describe the flaw of the argument.
Hope this helps !
You can take a timed section without doing the whole test
you will find "Problem sets" under "LSAT Questions" tap on the banner of 7sage.
Then, you can use multiple options that help you customize problem sets.
hope it helps !
I'm not sure if it is also related to the problems you guys mentioned..
but the pinning button disappeared as well.. hope this to be fixed soon!
@kostyaterekhov110 I'm interested! Please DM me!!
the conclusion says
: thus, there is reason to be skeptical about the conclusion drawn in the magazine's survey.
and AC C
: other surveys suggest that North Americans are just as concerned about politics as they are about finance
which is different from what the magazine's survey shows
so, AC C weakens the magazine's survey which the statistician argues against, meaning AC C doesn't weaken the argument (Statistician's) but it weakens the magazine's survey.
hope this helps !
Yes ! you're right.
We are supposed to take given premises as true and not attack them.
But, unfortunately, there are some cases that the correct AC is attacking/contradict its premises. It doesn't happen often. But I'm pretty sure you'll encounter such cases as you do more PTs.
#help #help
for AC A, I understood it as
: nation exist --> something other than the false belief that the nation has "moral rights" motivates its citizens to make sacrifices
but, aren't there moral responsibilities that can motivate its citizens to make sacrifices?
the stimulus explicitly mentions that
: But no nation can survive unless many of its citizens attribute such rights "and" responsibilities to it, for nothing else could prompt people to make the sacrifices national citizenship demands.
I'm not sure if moral rights and responsibilities are the same things.
also, if they are the same things, then why AC A is wrong?
Can "moral responsibilities" not motivate citizens to make sacrifices?
Appreciate !!
I think we need to see the whole argument in order to solve MP questions. Even if "mysterious" can be understood "no one will ever know the true cause" in some cases, the AC C is not supported by other premises.
Also, if we read it carefully, it rather says "the current theory" (first sentence) can't explain the lack of increase in temperature following earthquakes (last sentence).
AC B better captures this main point of the argument.
Hope this helps!
It is a necessary assumption question, meaning that if we negate the correct AC then the argument in the stimulus would be seriously broken.
if we negate AC C
=> Most voters are "not" unlikely to be persuaded by A's campaign promises to vote for her in the mayoral election.
The core argument is
Premise1: A's campaign promises are apparently just an attempt to please voters
Premise2: What she says she will do if elected mayor is simply what she has learned from opinion polls that voters want the new mayor to do
Conclusion: Therefore, voters are not being told what A actually intends to do if she becomes mayor
the negated AC C doesn't breaks the connections between premises and conclusion. That's why it is not the correct answer for this question.
Hope this helps!
Premise: Television gave rise to music videos
Conclusion: Anyone who insists that music videos are an art form should also agree that television gave rise to an art form
I think we need to focus on the connection between music video and television.
Television gave rise to music videos, and music videos are an art form
=> then, we can say television gave rise to an art form.
AC B has the same structure as the stimulus
Premise: pound cake is lower in fat than avocados
Conclusion: Anyone who holds that avocados are a fruit should also hold that pound cake is lower in fact than some fruit
Pound cake is lower in fat than avocados, and avocados are a fruit
=> then, we can say that pound cake is lower in fact than some fruit (avocados)
Hope this helps!
A simple answer would be because E is not the conclusion of the stimulus.
For this question, the first sentence is the conclusion of it.
=> The welfare state cannot be successfully implemented because it rests on the assumption that human beings are unselfish.
Premise: The welfare state is feasible only if wage earners are prepared to have their hardened funds used to help others in greater need, and that requires an unselfish attitude.
=> welfare state -> prepared ... to help others -> unselfish attitude
Premise: But people innately seek their own well-being
=> not unselfish = selfish
So, if we combine the two premises
=> WS -> Help others -> /S
S
the second premise trigger the whole chain!
=> S -> /Help others -> /WS
Thus, the conclusion would be the welfare state is not feasible, which the AC A well paraphrases.
AC E doesn't show the conclusion of the stimulus.
Hope this helps !
Congrats!!
I think it has to do with H's premise and assumption. In the stimulus, H says that "honeybees do not need so complicated a mechanism... Forager honeybees returning to their hive simply leave a scent trail ..." (Premise)
And I guess, H assumes that if they don't need "so complicated a mechanism," and they already have a mechanism for a certain goal, then other things (dance) wouldn't be used for the same goal.
With this consideration, JY's explanation of the modified AC (there is more than one way to communicate where food is) makes sense.
Since they already have a mechanism (scent trail) and H assumes other things (dance) wouldn't be used for the same goal as scent trail (assumption), H would say no to the modified AC.
Hope this helps!
Hello everyone!
I was just curious if resume matters for top law school admission. I'm still studying LSAT, but just wondering if it is important. Without many/outstanding working (or internship) experiences, does it matter to get into good law schools?
(I know.. hard numbers like LSAT score and GPA are obviously more important.. haha)
Thank you!
Conclusion: The bill that makes using car phones while driving illegal should be adopted
Premise1: Using a car phone seriously distracts the driver (in turn poses a threat to safe driving)
Premise2: Illegal to do so → Deterred from using their car phones while driving
It is a sufficient assumption question. Do you see a gap between the premises and conclusion?
conclusion says the bill should be adopted
but the premises do not say whether or not we should adopt it.
Premises just say: Using a car phone poses a threat to safe driving, and to make it illegal deters people from doing so.
It doesn't mean we should adopt the bill. We have to connect the premises and conclusion (since it is a SA question)
B says: Reduce the threat → Legislation
hmm.. B doesn't bridge the premises and conclusion. It is kinda reversed conditional sentence of the premise 2.
Hope this helps!
Hi, I'm going to take the April test in South Korea. I'm interested in joining in a discussion thread.
Thank you!
Everything is up to LSAC I would say.. but, personally, I think later tests would likely to be the flex format as we can see the COVID is still going on in the world. I think at least until June or July, they will hold flex tests. And the date will be announced before the April LSAT. Stay tuned!
I'm interested! I also just graduated. I'm currently living in CA, but I'm going to take the Oct LSAT in South Korea.
I'm interested! Currently scoring around 168-173. Taking the April test, but planned to take the June test as well.