Hii! I am very interested in tutoring if you might still be taking students. Such an impressive progression and score of yours!:) I will message as well.

D is correct not because it more weakens the conclusion than does B, it is correct because it invalidates the argument made. And the question is asking which most weakens the argument , not the conclusion of the argument necessarily..

This question totally got me..

I totally understand why E is correct.

But does anyone have a clean comprehensive drop dead argument for why D is incorrect?

If the reader cannot discern ideas perfectly, very possibly they've misinterpreted something, and if they cannot catch every idea, it becomes possible they've missed an intermediate conclusion or something of the sort necessary for two other ideas to not contradict. No?

The justification for AC D is "she points out the Typhlodromus’s “seasonal synchrony” with the “growth of prey populations” as contributing to the effectiveness of Typhlodromus”

But in that sentence she is specifically talking about the "reproduction". I.e., AC A...

"Seasonal synchrony of Typhlodromus reproduction with the growth of prey populations and ability to survive at low prey densities also contribute to the predatory efficiency of Typhlodromus."

I completely understand that she doesn't mention the predator population increasing before the prey, fair. But either does she state at the rate of consumption is synchronized.

If the correct answer is indeed D, I don't find that it is explained in the insights here.

And J.Y.'s video explanation, indeed while explaining why D should logically be correct, "in a vacuum", rather completely forgets (almost comically so I find?) to tie anything back to text evidence of why the author would hold such a view.

I don't hold that A is great.

But I would love a great explanation of why D is in any sense objectively more supported in the text!

@juliaarciga55 yes i found this AC Completely ridiculous too..... <3

Please help me understand how LSAC wants me to read things:

I don't understand how is one supposed to know whether D is referring to a crop in the sense of a particular crop, or a crop in the sense of any crop?

I.e., if I said: "it is never prudent to trust completely a sense which has deceived me even once" - that means any sense which has deceived me even once.

Here it really absolutely could mean either a particular crop or any crop which was once a ___ .

I feel like oftentimes we are supposed to assume the worst in ACs which are imprecisely worded. But here it seems we are supposed to assume the best?

Are we supposed to assume the best here only because the other choices are all just perhaps a little more wrong?

I guess AC-D is the only one that could be entirely correct if the best were assumed, so we have to do that in this instance?

Please help explain how to think about these situations quickly and deterministically in an LSAC way, if anyone has any insight.

Thank you!

@beyondsudi482 What exactly is it meant by "just ID the argument structure and match it"?

If you draw the venn diagrams it becomes very clear!

Walk is a subset of Lunch

what would make it the case then that:

not all Jobs are in Walk

?

well for example, if some of Jobs were not in Lunch, then you would be guaranteed that some Jobs were also not in Walk!

and AC-D states that some Walk are not in Jobs, which implies the converse that some Jobs are also not in Walk

@jfmjack169 Also having this problem! Please can anyone explain clearly why:

"typically the longer it's been used -> the more widely it is used"

necessarily implies

"typically the more widely it is used -> the longer it's been used" ?

(this is necessary to transform, correct?)

Maybe this is an elementary logic question? But I'm needing a clear explanation or analogy.

J.Y., your demeanor and attitude in these videos is unhelpful. Can't you see it's not just a matter of being kind to viewers to not be dismissive of questions that some people (and among them some extremely intelligent people) did choose, for reasons which may in fact be very good; it's actually also irrational to adopt your typical attitude - because you assign too high a confidence to the infallibility of your own reasoning, and your having not missed good alternative reasonings. Not to mention the pragmatic loss you incur personally by turning people off from your service. Endeavoring to adopt a more open minded attitude would be the rational choice for you.

I do however generally thank you for the beautifully laid out website and program.

@HimajaReddy Indeed this would crumble the argument. And I completely agree that AC-A is a "necessary condition". But do you pose that any necessary condition for an argument is also an assumption of the argument? (This is a sincere question, is this the case? When asked for a required assumption should we be looking for any necessary condition, and if found, this is the right answer?)

Counter-example: "using such genetically engineered crops can help wildlife populations to recover". This is a necessary condition. But would you call that an assumption? (Another sincere question actually). I wouldn't. Because, it's pretty much just the conclusion - a reasonable person doesn't refer to that as an assumption required by the argument. (Right?)

And AC-A is, somewhat less so, but at least to my mind seems far more like a re-iteration of the argument conclusion than an assumption. AC-A: using gen eng crops will cause less harm to wildlife. Conclusion: using gen eng crops will help wildlife recover.

Another reason it doesn't fit the definition of an assumption (at least as far as I have been aware throughout studying for this test) is: it itself requires multiple steps, including multiple assumptions, or evidence. As a conclusion does, not an assumption. And then fittingly, it then arrives at something quite near the actual conclusion of the argument.

I don't argue that B is right necessarily, though I think perhaps it is less wrong than A. I just argue that A is also wrong.

True "assumptions" in the argument might include: less harm -> recovery; if crops don't need insecticides, they won't be sprayed, past spraying harm indicates future spraying harm, etc.

I am so confused by this question.. It feels so inconsistent with every other question I've seen so far in terms of what we can "an assumption" in these arguments.. :/

(And don't the statistics show this? The median score of choosers of A is 166, and B is 164 - probably there is not even statistical significance to this difference! This suggests that this question is a poor indicator of performance on the rest of the test, if choosing the right answer can hardly predict your score? And perhaps being a poor indicator of performance suggests inconsistent, and in this case I suggest, even - bad?)

So, I would love to hear a much more satisfying reason why one could choose A confidently on the test, in a way that in consistent with the rest of our methodology.

Is not B a premise stated within the argument rather than an assumption? ( At least in the way we are taught in the lsat to accept anything started as a premise rather than an assumption).

"because people lose motivation to work for goals they think are unrealizable."

So the only assumption present perhaps would be that "believe[ing] that better futures are possible" <-> thinking that reducing poverty portion and war is realizable.

No?

I did choose B. Because every other answer is more wrong somehow. But I think B is wrong too , or at least not up to usual standards of rigor or at least is inconsistent with the formulation of the test where all premises are accepted, as is used everywhere else. No?

Please explain where so if I am misunderstanding. Thank you.

I posit that passage B sketches an argument that it does necessarily endorse. (Making answer choice A incorrect)

I posit that the best interpretation of passage B is simply an argument/proposal for the returning of land wherever it be feasible.

Is this not what the author is arguing for, and rather directly?

The two potential points of "distancing" are the:

• "One natural way of reasoning..." presentation of the argument.

  - By then saying "one might almost say obvious" we should be forced to believe that the author in all likelihood suggesting (and almost forcefully so) that this natural way of reasoning is more than one natural way, but akin to the natural way - which is a typical (albeit often flawed) way of asserting that something is right. I.e., there is actually evidence that the author agrees with this way of reasoning even from the first potentially ambiguating sentence.

• "Ideally, the land should be restored to its rightful owners. This may be impractical; compromises might have to be made."

  - You could, in isolation, take this to be the conclusion of the argument that the author is presenting.

  But the overall conclusion of the argument is that "the original wrong can most easily be righted by returning the land to them ... wherever that is feasible." (Does anyone disagree that this is the most logical of possible inferred main arguments of Author B? We can discuss this point if so.)

  And in light of the author's main argument being "returning land wherever feasible", stating that total restoration may be impractical, shows itself to be simply an additional premise used as a logical (and verbal/rhetorical) step for presenting the main conclusion in the next (and final) sentance.

  It is rather clear that the "This may be impractical...made." statement is not in fact a conclusion, but merely a premise, as there is no evidence or argument presented in support of it.

So the logical interpretation of the passage is an argument for land restoration wherever feasible - a view that to within reason, the reader should conclude that the author in fact personally contending for.

@kennmh20874 I would totally agree, except that just after the "this may be impractical" remark, the author of B says "But the original wrong can be most easily righted by returning the land to them".

They simply propose a nuanced approach to the principle for which they are presenting a convincing argument, no?

It doesn't appear to me at all to be a presentation of the idea of restoring all land, from which the author takes distance. Because the "former", if existent at all, is only cursorally mentioned. It's just a step along the way to make a seamless and easy to understand presentation of the final reccomended nuanced approach.

So it seems to me much better interpreted, or at least highly plausible interpreted as, a singular argument for this nuanced approach - not a presentation of an unheld opinion. (In fact there is evidence that the opion is held that this proposed nuanced approach should be taken - "But the original wrong can most easily be righted by returning the land to them")

@HagarEldeeb I felt the same on first reading of B. It felt exactly like a typical wrong answer because of the meaningless/wrong date used (1987 instead of 1970).

But of course yes, this is the best of the bad bunch.

Are we supposed to then parse through answers which are somewhat less than true in these kinds of contexts?

I see that B somewhat more strongly calls into question the theory. But C also would call into the theory, no? We could infer that up to 1000 years is a long time and that makes it irrelevant, but that seems highly intuitive and not supported by evidence necessarily. No?

I'm just trying to calibrate how I think about the test. Like, should I expect to see questions with (as I see it) one best answer, and one or or more decent (not false) answers, and I have to make a judgement call between them?

It seems certainly possible that Schmandt would agree with this D. But kind of a gross stretch to me. Doesn't it overstate? Yes, they eventually came to not use the tokens. But to infer something about the way they saw the tokens from this?

Is it common that on these kinds of questions we just have to choose the best answer of the bunch, or perhaps the only one that isn't directly false or not at all supported - and there won't be an answer that it is necessarily very good ?

Thank you!

I agree that A is best supported, and B C D and E are hardly supported, if at all. But I find part of the wording in A to make it also false, or not precisely correct:

Raphael's frescoes: "to provide an example that illustrates the understanding of elitism in art favored by sociohistorical critics"

I find this to be: an example of the method of elitist art commissioning favored by sociohistorical critics

I don't see how the example illustrates the entire understanding itself. It's just an example of the method, which does not in any way illustrate the Taruskin's understanding, it seems to me.

Does anyone else find this wording of A strange? Or can anyone explain more concretely why that example illustrates the understanding ?

Thank you!

Sofi