When I read the question stem, I prephrased...the works of popular culture refers to those works that weren't part of Stilgoe's evidence pile for his position "ambivalence disappeared after 1880"
How can something that was written by "unknown" intellectuals be popular works of that time?
@gurpals77 i feel you. I was frustrated. And the analysis highlights everything. But you can cut through the nonsense and get to the bare bones:
the standard personality tests did not detect any effect of birth order on someone's personality.
therefore, birth order has no effects on the personality
this is link assumption:
IF standard test did not detect the effect, THEN there is no effect.
contrapositive: If there is an effect, the standard test will detect that effect.
right answer choice is the contrapositive
E) Jarrett did not expect the criticism to be to Ostertag's benefit.
vs
the trigger) Jarrett didn’t expect to benefit anyone at all.
what is the difference in the meaning between these two?
"Did not... anyone at all" means "no one". I keep messing this up.
There was another question that required a similar translation:
PT111.S3.Q21
Even if individuals show greater economic responsibility after they get out of prison, this doesn’t suggest that creditors are more likely to get their money back or that the overall public might be better off.
WHATEVER DO YOU MEAN BY THIS????
The ENTIRE passage I inferred "economic health" to mean "paying back your debt to better serve the citizens you owe money to"
and "economic responsibility" means "working to improve economic health"
I have a problem with (E):
nowhere does the author show evidence that it is THE COUNTRY's economic health that will be improved. Instead he says "a society". Meaning, it's local.
The other issue with (E). What evidence does this answer choice give me to infer that yes, it was indeed DUE TO THE punishment that the economic health was greater? It's a correlation. I do think this is less of an issue than trying to conflate "public good" and "citizens of a society" to a WHOLE country than just the local, immediate and actually impacted group of citizens.
@bob247hammer the right answer needs support FROM the passage. (B) could offer support TO the argument in the passage. The question stem is of the 'implied' tag.
A) by breaking sacrosanct social contracts, the person is committing "moral failure"
this is most strongly supported = implied
B) our author is concerned about preserving economic health. And the punitive defender would say, by punishing also you can protect the economic health.
this reads as strengthen/strongly supports their argument.
@Stas1973 hey! i understood the explanation and i agree that (D) favors the new theory over the traditional. But I thought it also contradicts the premise "light shells are more frequent where the floor is light-colored"
and I thought we aren't supposed to deny the premises. Maybe we can deny the premises if their purpose is to support the old theory? Am i right in inferring this?
Just realized that this is more like "what is a MBF situation for old theory and a MBT situation for the new theory?" lol
@tigerlily there is only ONE answer choice that will strengthen and the others will not strengthen at all. I chose (C) and i dont really understand why (C) does not strengthen. But I want you to know in LSAT, there is only answer choice that does the job the question stem asks for.
why am i wrong in inferring that the second date (500 years later) is WHEN the ice masses yielded to forests?
I saw someone else in the comments say it's possible that the ice masses disappeared around the same time as the warm beetles showed up. But the language in the stimulus makes me think that the second date determines when the ice mass yielded.
even if you justified (C) by saying trees are not conscious beings. Thus trees dont have rights.. you're not identifying the assumption.
"trees dont have rights" is already stated.
The link assumption is that "since there is no obligation to an entity, there is no obligation to not cut down trees"
if you negate this link you'll get "we may not have the obligation to trees, but we may still have an obligation not to cut them down (ex the obligation to our children)"
(D) tells us we dont have THAT obligation to not them cut down.
i guess it's the difference is between the obligation to an object vs the obligation to perform an action.
@LiaWang i would have had an easier time accepting (A) if it said "the preference of children who did not watch tv were influenced by the preferences of children who did watch" And then, yeah, telekinesis or whatever could have been the method. BUT i do agree, the question stem indicates "if true" and that is enough to forgo the method in which they were influenced.
I get that an AC that provides a causal mechanism is a sure way to strengthen. But how is a causal mechanism like this supported by "listening alone"?? That's all they did! Just by listening they figured who had emotions and who didn't. So why is it reasonable to infer that a change in the vocal cords and lungs is something that can be discerned by listening?
@Stas1973 hey! I think that type of answer choice is tagged as 'failed alternate explanation'. And yeah, C falls short a little. We can't undermine the conclusion better bc his evidence 'ferrous material' is still present and it has just as much a fair chance for being THE cause. (D) weakens better by showing a cause is present but the effect is not. The conclusion is purely about the effect.
@ElizabethGraceSwartzwelder me too. i found it hard too. I actually inferred (D) to be a strengthen. Being like, yeah sure if you affect the brain activity with medication, you will affect its effect, the hyperactivity.
@DaliaGolovcoYes that does help. I did get caught up in trying to validate the gap between "largest possible share for bland shows" and "there are some viewers who would refuse to watch controversial shows". But it makes mroe sense to be little bit more grounded in the approach by just identifying the conclusion and premise and worrying about the quantifiers later.
why are we ignoring the "at most one pair" phrase. It literally means, 0 or 1 pair.
Even buying 1 pair means "buying shoes"
vs the stimulus compares students who have taken at least 1 course AND students taken 0 courses
very annoying that in the video explanations FOR SO MANY QUESTIONS, "some" is conveniently translated as "few" or "not the majority"
SOME CAN BE translated as MOST but i always translate it as "at least one"
now i can see that (E) is not the weakener because it's not strong enough! Not because "several" means "not the most" and thus could be a strengthener. Feels wrong to draw an inference like that.
So "at least one" is not strong enough. It's not a reliable weakener, that's all there is to rule out (E) -.-
@Stas1973 I think (A) is wrong for a simpler reason. That, patty just wanted computer lessons at kindergarten and then in HS. "regular training" goes beyond that. Meanwhile Q was like, despite them being taught in KG and HS, their computer knowledge will be useless when they're adults. Q Assumes that the same old lessons are the only takeaways from those classes. But there could be other takeaways, like developing the ability to interact.
I eliminated (C) because it did not mention explicitly "advancing tech" which is what parent Q was concerned with.
And too many freaking times I've gotten answers wrong for not reading properly. Now that I did read properly, and I'm like "this AC is a little incomplete with what i'm looking for" i still got it wrong.
i am tired of this nonsense
leaving this here since there's no discussion here yet:
the question stem is "Argument will not be effective unless what is true?" = necessary assumption.
A) (each) small airports do not have fewer flights now than before the policy change. Not necessary. Bc his premise is that for most small airports, there are more flights.
B) since change in policy, each major airline abandoned ALL but large airports. Not necessary. This is also more related to the first speaker.
C) policies that result in increase in flights to which consumers have easy access do not generally work to disadvantage consumers. Necessary to make speaker 2's argument effective and relevant to speaker 1. "This policy has worked to disadvantage some people" is speaker 1's conclusion. So speaker 2 NEED to address this statement to make this argument effective.
D) regional airlines charge less than major airline for the same route. Charge is irrelevant
E) very much irrelevant.
I recently discovered that now we can filter by Answer choice tags in Analytics > Questions. Could we get the same feature under Drills as well? Would be useful to know which type answer choice I keep gravitating towards every time I pick the wrong answer.
could you change the default line height spacing to be smaller? Currently the default spacing is too large compared to how it looked with the old font. With the large line spacing and the short, round new font, the stimulus looks like a string of characters rather than separate words. It makes a difference because way too often students find themselves looking back at the stimulus to recollect and identify familiar words from the answer choices. And it's disabling to not be able to quickly identify where the words are located when it just looks like a long string of round characters. Especially when the font size is set to 'large' or greater.
wow, the author disagreed with Malthu's premise at first and then said "your premise will be true in the future. But right now it's false"
They disagree on the state of food production capacity in current times. M says the state is dismal currently, author says the state is thriving currently.
@CarolinaGarcia156 its a reasonable inference to make. If you do not know about your politician's proposal to burn local forests, it is safe to infer that there is a lack of approval from you on that proposal. There is also the equal possibility of a lack of disapproval from you on it.
i was stuck between (D) and (E) and like someone else mentioned in this thread, (D) is very much a contender in this case.
However, imagine you tell our author what (D) is saying. You tell him "hey yknow, unionizing has these other cool benefits. so maybe you should consider it"
and the author will be like "sure there may be benefits, BUT a majority students would disapprove of it anyways" <-- this is still his flawed little premise.
THAT's how becomes (E) the correct answer. The flaw lies in his inferences between his premises
I think this reasoning flaw is similar to this question: PT130.S1.Q11
The flaw is that, in some cases, the alleged cause can still be the cause for the effect. Even if there is no correlation in your evidence. Even if for some people, the cause does not produce that effect.
"some" is doing a lot of work for these types of reasoning errors