Please help. I don't understand why (C) is wrong.

Stimulus: No combining publicity appearance and competition. So it is "not both" rule.

PA-->/Competition, or it could be Competition -->/PA

PA-->/Competition

Competition

_________________

/PA

(C)

Tomato thrive --> Hot Summer

/Hot Summer

______________________

/Tomato thrive

I was also having trouble subtle differences of serious emergency and critical emergency.

(B)

less serious emergency -->/critical emergency

fairly minor emergency

____________________

/critical emergency

I would think fairly minor emergency would also be non critical emergency....

According to the stimulus, the club president has disallowed Jeffrey to vote. Thomas is arguing that that was in violation of club rules.

(Structure)

Premise 1: Rule: Vote --> Good standing member

Premise 2: Jeffrey is a good standing member

Conclusion: The president’s action of disallowing Jeffrey to vote was in violation of club rules.

Here are club rules: only good standing members may vote. (vote—> good standing member)

Jeffrey paid his dues on time and therefore he is a good standing member. Necessary condition is satisfied, therefore we don’t know if he is allowed to vote or not allowed to vote. There could be other criteria to qualify to vote that Jeffrey does not meet, in which case he is not allowed to vote. Or Jeffrey meets all the criteria to vote, in which case he is allowed to vote. We have no information about it.

But, Thomas concludes that the president’s action of disallowing Jeffrey to vote was in violation of club rules. Disallowing Jeff's vote could or could not be in violation of the rules. In spite of this possibility that it may not be in violation, Thomas made a determination that it is in violation. This is the flaw. He is saying that allowing him to vote is in compliance with (authorized by) the rule. (In other words, to be in compliance, Jeffrey should be allowed to vote.)

And that is what answer choice (A) is saying. His argument fails to take into account the distinction between something not being prohibited (allowing Jeffrey to vote) and its being authorized (in compliance with the rule). He is saying that allowing to vote is in compliance with (authorized by) the rule. At the end of the answer choice A, words “by the rule” is omitted. “Authorized” here does not mean his being authorized to vote, but rather, it means being authorized by the rule.

We can also view it as sufficient condition, necessary condition confusion flaw. Because in reaching the conclusion, Thomas mistakenly assumed the club rule as: good standing member —> vote. But this is not in any of the answer choices.

(A) is the correct answer.

(B) There is no character attack here.

(C) There is no such statement being denied or regarded as true here.

(D) What they were voting about is irrelevant.

(E) Whether Althea is authority in club rules or not is irrelevant.

Answer choice (A) was written very tricky that it was difficult to recognize it was the right answer.

I had a hard time understanding why (A) is the right answer. After thinking about it for a day on and off, I came up with this reasoning. Please take a look if my logic behind getting the right answer is correct.

I wonder if this this question can be viewed as Resolve Reconcile type; the premise says the land-dwelling whales needed hind limbs capable of supporting its weight, and conclusion says the fragile limbs of whale found in the fossil is the remnant of whale once lived on land. But I tried to solve it as strengthen question.

This question talks about whales from three different periods; ancient whale (lived before fossilized whale skeleton), fossilized whale, and modern whale.

Premise:

Conclusion: The fragile hind limbs are remnants of limbs that land-dwelling whale once had.

I initially misunderstood the conclusion as the fragile hind limbs found in the fossil is the remains the whale that was living on land. So land-dwelling whale having fragile limbs is contradiction within the premise... but the correct understanding is the fragile hind limbs newly found in fossil is how the ancient whale evolved to be. The key was a correct understanding of the word "remnant."

So, to summarize it... whale evolution is like this chronologically.

Ancient Whale (ones lived before the newly found fossilized skeleton)

Fossilized Whale

Modern Whale

So, we need to strengthen the conclusion that the fossilized whale skeleton that has fragile limbs is the evolved form of whales limbs that lived on land at one point.

(A) is correct. The confirmation that ancient whale had a full pelvis would strengthen that by evolution it became a partial pelvis (as found in fossil) and now only bare remnant of pelvis.

(B) This weakens the conclusion

(C) irrelevant

(D) I initially chose this answer and that was because I misunderstood what the conclusion meant precisely.

(E) irrelevant.

It became a quite long explanation... I wonder if I am overthinking when it is really a simple question. I would appreciate any confirmation or correction on my reasoning. Thanks!!

Where can I find the explanations to the LSAT PT 1~35 questions? I signed up for the "Ultimate" package. Is it included in that package?

I am having trouble understanding why A is the right answer.

P: Ink from Bible by Gutenberg contains titanium. Ink of another bible from 15th Century contains titanium. Ink from other printing from 15th century does not contain titanium. (from the word "another" I am thinking that Gutenberg Bible was from 15th Century)

Conclusion: This finding supports (1) B3 bible was printed by Gutenberg, (2) We cannot doubt that the Vinland Map is not from 15th century because of the presence of titanium in the ink.

In arriving the first conclusion, the author is making an assumption that only Gutenberg used ink containing titanium in 15th century.

What I don't understand it that in arriving second conclusion, I don't see that the author is making an assumption that ink containing titanium was widely used (not restricted as the answer choice A states). I am thinking that it could be that those Vinland Maps were printed by Gutenberg. In that case, the second conclusion follows well. The second conclusion is based on the premise that ink containing titanium was used in 15th century by somebody. How can we say that the author is assuming that titanium ink was widely used (not restricted) from this conclusion? The premise is talking about one Vinland Map in question and we don't know how popular that map was during that time. It could be there were only few copies made by Gutenberg, then can't we conclude that presence of titanium in the ink of Vinland Map is no longer a reason to doubt of 15th century authenticity?

Thank you for any help you can give.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-25-section-2-question-19/

I do not understand how the answer choice C is supported at all. What part of the premise supports answer C? Thank you.

I am admitted to a law school with a scholarship. The tuition deposit is due 4/15/2020. I am considering to retake the LSAT again for a better score for a more scholarship consideration. The earliest I can re-take is the March Exam (3/30/2020) but the score will not be released until after the tuition deposit deadline. If I get a better score after making the tuition deposit, will the school still consider giving more scholarship?

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-23-section-3-question-06/

I had some reservations in choosing answer choice C. I was able to eliminate all the others so answer choice C seemed most likely to be correct, but I wasn't 100% sure. The reason is that the premise states "The purse of a trader in the city "would probably" have contained a more diverse set of coins." and the C uses more definitive word, "had been brought". I think we don't know for a fact that it 'had been' brought by the pilgrims. It is a speculation. Since it is only a speculation that the purse would probably have contained a more diverse set of coins. I would think the correct answer would say "The purse... was probably brought . . . by a pilgrim."

This is a really unusual question and took a long time to come up with this reasoning. Any feedback on my reasoning would be appreciated.

Context: There is a new law which will take effect soon and gives the patients legal rights to see their medical records. Doctor’s opines as the following:

Doctor’s Conclusion: patients should not have a legal right to see their medical records.

Reason 1: it will significantly reduce the amount of time that staff can spend on more important duties thus it is time wasting.

Reason 2: No patients will ask for it anyway, based on his experience so far.

Now, reason 1 is not even necessary to mention because reason 2 cancels out; if no patient will ask for it, whether it takes time to retrieve and return files doesn’t matter. They will not be time spent on that task anyway. Now the task is to find one answer choice that will make reason 2 not cancel out the reason 1. In other words, find a scenario in which even if no one asks for the files, it will still be a waste of time as a result of the new law.

(A) Correct. If the new law will require the doctors to be ready to produce records immediately each time they see patients, then reason 1 matters, even if no one asks for it. So with this new law, the reason 2 does not cancel out reason 1.

(B) Wrong. Even if the task of retrieving and returning files fall to the lowest-paid member of the office, if no one will be asking for it, it doesn’t matter how much time it takes to handle the files. Reason 1 is cancelled out by reason 2.

(C) Wrong. Even if this is true that patients will require more time for explanation of their records, reason 1 is still not a good reason if no one will ask for the records. Thus reason 1 is cancelled out by reason 2.

(D) Wrong. If they can get extra payment for the staff to handle the records, it will not be a waste of time so in this scenario, reason 1 is cancelled out even more so.

(E) Wrong. This is no different from what stimulus suggests. If no one asks for the records, reason 1 doesn’t matter. Reason 1 is cancelled out by reason 2.

I understand why A, B, C and E are wrong, but I am not quite convinced that D is the right answer either.

I would think that if a nation that seeks deterrence and has unsurpassed military power as stated in (D), it would not be the interest of that nation to let the potential aggressors become aware of its actual power of retaliatory attack which is not that great (since they have unsurpassed military power). They would rather want to make the aggressors not know of their actual unsurpassed retaliatory power but make the aggressors believe they have higher capacity than their actual military power, so that the aggressors would believe it could not defend itself against that retaliation.