- Joined
- Oct 2025
- Subscription
- Core
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
@Sara244 I wouldn't see it as one or the other tbh. I know we're taught to see it as a "conclusion" and that's probably the foundational way of seeing it. But there are many times when it's not and support from the statement comes from a small piece in the stimulus.
D is a TRAP because it doesn't actually affect anything in the argument (or the fact that the analogy still holds despite changing numbers). This is picking on the RAW number but that doesn't matter because the BENEFIT can still happen even if the NUMBER is smaller. "Probably benefit park visitors" is broad enough that it could just be ONE person who benefits, and thus the ARG still holds. In fact, D seems to concede the point that it would benefit people, so if anything it's consistent with the ARG/maybe even supports it a little bit (lmk if I'm wrong on this observation).
On the other hand, E weakens the connection that's holding this analogy together. If it produces much less compeition, and more competition is cited as one of the main reasons of benefit, then this weakens the logic.
@AreeshaSaif You have the right idea but in the wrong order. One way to see this argument is as equivocating, where it assumes that because we have symptoms that vary in people with mental illness that the organic factors that cause these symptoms must vary. So the direction of this assumption goes like this:
symptoms --> organic factors
However, this is also assuming that nothing other than the organic factors can account for these symptoms. The fact that the organic factors is in the necessary condition also supports this idea.
C weakens this assumption (pointing out the flaw) by giving another reason that can account for the symptoms (cultural factors), telling the argument that it's not JUST the organic factors.
I think your confusion here comes from the first sentence, but that is just giving additional context and doesn't do much to support the assumption in the argument. Since it's direct support for the fact that organic factors affect symptoms of mental illnesses, there's no gap there and we know that the assumption won't concern that statement.
I fell for A but the author explicity states we CANNOT ASSUME this. That means that it's NOT uncertain. Also, this is more nitppicky but I feel like A would make a small rates/numbers flaw because the passage talks about PROPORTION whereas A talks about the RAW NUMBER.
D is explicitly supported by: "However, it is not clear how far this outlook extended beyond these activists."
Detail questions can be insane sometimes. While they're explicitly stated this one basically required scanning across the whole passage to find that point of uncertainty.
If anyone could please provide tips on how you're getting better at these Q-types.... I feel like they should be easier but they're SO easy to overthink.
#help
@KeithEdwards Omg I'm with all of you on this. A was the only one that directly answered the Q but I eliminated it because I was like that definitely is nowhere in the passage. Ugh. Next time I see a crazy one like this I'm just gonna go straight for whatever answers the Q.....
I guess the only way to get this question correct is to realize that all of the ACs will require some small-ish assumption and then really lean on the "MOST" strongly supported. B and D were the only contenders (I liked A for a sec too but realized it went against APOV).
B- the second half of this is supported in P1 where it says these critics "feel compelled to draw a sharp distinction between autobiography and fiction." However, we have no reason to believe that they think it's IRRELEVANT. This probably would've stood out to us if it was mentioned anywhere in the passage, so this part is completely unsupported by the passage.
D- I hesitated with this AC because it requires a jump from what's given in the text. However, the weak wording, "might find this vision acceptable" is what helps this answer. Might find means they COULD but it doesn't necessarily HAVE TO HAPPEN. That leaves a lot of room for different things to happen and thus is much easier to support.
@Court I chose E during my BR too and was having trouble articulating why, but it seems like the problem is that it disputes a statement of fact (EVD). The EVD tells us that, for a fact, the sun was "only 80% as luminous as it is currently" which means it was 20% less luminous than it currently is.
The problem with E is that it tries to weaken the evidence by saying there hasn't been a significant change in the sun's brightness now compared to 3 billion years ago (and now that I'm revisiting the radiation part seems completely irrelevant to the conclusion).
From what I've learned as a general rule on the LSAT, we must ALWAYS take the EVD as truth so we can never dispute the truth of the EVD and hence this is one reason that E is wrong.
Take a look at this fact:
Only if the level of greenhouse gases were higher 3 billion years ago than it is today would Earth have retained enough heat to keep the oceans from freezing.
And then take a look at the CONC:
It is likely, therefore, that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was significantly higher then than it is today.
If you diagram this, it would be:
KOF --> ^ LVL of GG (3B yrs ago)
xKOF
-----------------------------------------
x^ LVL of CO2 (3B yrs ago)
This almost seems valid until you realize that the author infers the level of CO2 specifically was higher (deriving this from that the level of greenhouse gases was higher). The author commits a Whole to Part flaw because the AU infers something specific from a broader group. He also assumes that there were no factors other than CO2 that could have contributed to this phenomenon.
When I was doing this, I thought that there might be some alternative explanation or some other factor that could have contributed to this phenomenon.
I fell for E because "radiation" seemed like another factor/explanation, but E is a terrible answer because it tries to dispute a statement of fact in the evidence and actually does not have a bearing on the conclusion.
Yikessss, Idk what's going on bc I got this correct during my initial take but when trying to understand it better during BR C started to look attractive.....
Ahhh, I thought the consequence in A was subjective enough to allow for a disastrous consequence. Totally missed that this hinges on "might" have a negative consequence as compared to "overwhelming evidence [of] disastrous consequences."
So this matches the trigger in the contrapositive of our statement:
/OEDC --> FD
(If NOT overwhelming evidence of disastrous consequences, then FULFILL the duty)
This is so easy I can't believe I missed this wowowow
With this you basically have to "add" the two pieces together. During my initial take I focused too much on each of the individual sentences that it prevented me from seeing the bigger pic inference i can make with this one
@jujujube Thank u!! Great explanation. To add, we know that the change happened in Granville, but generally accepted reality could dictate that this change doesn't have to happen in other areas. We only know about the area where it DID happen.
Since this is a causal argument, E presents the "no effect" scenario of switching school start times. The small assumption we have to make here is that the surrounding areas did not change their start times.
This presents a no cause, no effect scenario that strengthens the Au's argument that the purported cause (change in start time) is having an effect (decrease in # of accidents)
Did anyone actually do this quickly during a PT? If so, how are ya'll cutting down the time on this one??
Sucks that the AC is all the way at the end and you can't do a pick and go....
FLAW: The ARG confuses sufficiency and necessity, specifically negates w/o reversing.
A- wrong because it adds an extra condition that doesn't match the flaw in our stimulus.
B- matches the negate w/o reversing flaw.
C and D both have perfect logic. C meets the contrapositive of the hypothetical statement and D meets the sufficient condition of the hypothetical statement.
E- this one is interesting. It also commits a confusing suff/necessity flaw, but not like the one in the stimulus. Instead of negating w/o reversing, this reverses w/o negating rendering this AC wrong.
Basically, the assumption here is that the Au thinks he accounted for EVERY SINGLE CASE that could constitute causality (when in fact he just gives two possibilities) and denies the possibility that the could lead to each other. However, this is flawed because he doesn't provide strong evidence. He says there are SOME people that fall into category X and SOME people fall into category Y. This is not sufficient to prove that it would include ALL the people in these categories.
This is like saying there is no CAUSAL connection between studying for the LSAT and getting a high score. Why? Because we know of some instances where people study but don't get a high LSAT score. And there are some situations where people some people don't study but DO get a high LSAT score.
A weakens this argument by strengthening the causal relationship that the author denies.
I wish 7sage explanations would abstract/simplify like this to help us see the patterns better instead of getting into the nuts and bolts of each question. It's so hard to see the flaws when you get boggled down by the specifics of each argument. #feedback
I think the main thing with this question is IDing where in the passage to actually go. I referenced the part in P1 where it talks about 1989 to try and get a sense of what happened BEFORE 1989. However, I should've gone to P2 because this is where the discussion on modeling oil fields is located.
P1 introduces the example of modeling oil fields using comps, but it's not until P2 that we actually discuss this process.
Agh.
@RSD How much of the text around the 2nd to last sent did you read when you answered this question? I just read the referenced sentence re Emeagwali's beliefs.
A didn't seem super attractive during my initial take but the "until recently" should've made this more obviously attractive since it supports the idea that of a change where scientists are "increasingly" referencing nature in their maths.
Congrats!! It shows you can do it!