The most popular wrong answers are just a result of misreading the question, not what he says is the trap answer (which I agree is the intended trap). This is one of the last questions in the last section and is a true differentiator between the 160's and 170's. The LSAT, at the top 10%, is more of an endurance and attention to detail test than a test of overall logical capabilities IMO. I firmly believe that anyone who can score in the mid to high 150s timed could get almost every question right if you gave them the test with unlimited time and breaks.

So is it a fair thing to say that if we have multiple premises, and one of them is much stronger than the other, it is almost always better to weaken the stronger premise? Like in this one, the similarities between a car and a city are huge and comparison's between a city and another city will naturally be smaller. Therefore, arguments from analogy between cars and cities can never be as strong as an argument from analogy between city and city. So inherently, the second premise is stronger and if we weaken that one we will weaken the argument more?

How this would play into the test would be this strategy: if we can identify the strongest premise in the argument (it just has to be strongest in the argument, doesn't have to be a strong or airtight argument) then we should weight our answers towards those that attack the stronger premise?

The trend of getting every level 1 and 2 wrong and way over time, but getting every 3, 4, and 5 right and under-time is still holding strong.

I spend way too long trying to figure out what unrelated answers are trying to say and vainly trying to connect them to the answer. I don't know why B and C were different answer choices (probably a lazy test writer) and I was sure that I had misunderstood something. Why would the test writers give us two answer choices where one basically said 'I have 12' and the other said 'I have a dozen' when the question was "what is your favorite color?"

I was getting these all wrong on the diagnostic test, but haven't gotten one wrong yet here. I was thinking about the questions backwards and trying to undermine premises instead of support. I discounted every single correct answer because I was like 'no, that's just another way to explain this phenomenon; why would that weaken the argument'. It's crazy how just a little clarity on what the test writers are actually asking for can turn a question from impossible to fairly obvious.

My theory is holding true, difficulty is more about placement on the test than content. This question came from section 2 question 26 is a level 5. It seems like the difficulty is relying on you being in a rush and missing the fact that it was the same people polled, and the 'almost' in the first sentence. I bet if this was the first question people would take the time to read it and it would be a 3.

I feel like these 'difficulty' ratings have far more to do with where the question landed in the test than the actual difficulty. This did not feel like a 2 difficulty it felt trickier than that because A is the most popular trap answer and when you are crunched on time you are much more likely to just go with your first impression. I would guess that if it was in section 4 question 25 instead of section 1 question 6 a lot more people would be getting it wrong. Still, don't think it would be a four or a five, probably a 3, but all the fours and fives I've seen have been near the end of sections where a good portion of people are probably guessing anyway because they ran out of time.

Does anyone know if they take test order and answer order into account when assigning difficulty or is it just based off the number of people who got it wrong?

The casual laugh after he says 'lets think back about the dead dolphins'. Savage.

Phenomenon... DO DOOO DO DO DO... Phenomenon... DO DO DO DOOT

My understanding is that Most before Most (A‑m→B‑m→C, Therefore: A←s→C) is not valid for two main reasons.

1. Most (51%-100%) includes all which means there is a world where you are making the much easier to understand all before most fallacy any time you say it.

Most (or all) NBA Basketball players are tall. Most tall people are not good at basketball. Therefore, some pro basketball players are not good at basketball INVALID

VS

Most NBA players are tall. ALL tall people are not good at basketball. Therefore, some pro basketball players are bad at basketball. VALID

2. You just lack enough information to bet your life on the fact that some of A are C. To use the above example, sure, some NBA basketball players might be not good at basketball, but I really doubt it. I would not bet my life on a 1v1 against the 'worst' player in the league.

You could come up with some crazy example of the third string guy who is only there because of who his dad is, or because of injuries, a player is not good right now... but you are bringing in a whole new set of premises that are no where in the presented argument.

TL/DR: Stop overthinking it, and accept that most can mean all. Don't think outside of the test question's box.

The LSAT may be cunning, but I am a master debater.

I got this right on a drill before taking this course. after taking the lessons I got it wrong and took more time

So is this where we get into valid vs True?

All X wings have Hyper drives

X->H

Most X wings have battle scars

X‑m→BS

Therefore, some hyperdrives have battle scars

H←s→BS

This seems obviously valid to me but I can easily imagine a world where the conclusion is untrue. If this were the question on the LSAT, would we have to say the conclusion follows from the premises even if it is very easy to imagine a world where that is not Actually true?

We are all Brad in spirit

I know PSA is a subset of Strengthen, but how are you guys telling them apart? the only ones I missed were confusing PSA for Strengthen and Vice Versa.

This is what I worked out and found out that I was wrong because I took the conclusion as a premise. My initial (WRONG) instinct was to just take the conditionals out of context. If we take these conditionals out of context they would read:

Individual Freedom→Rule of Law

Individual Freedom →Social Integrity

Good Life → Social integrity

I can combine those to get multiple right answers:

A

There for it is true both that

/Social Integrity→/Individual Freedom→/Rule of Law

/Social Integrity→/Rule of Law

or

There can be no Rule of Law without Social Integrity

AND

B

/Rule of Law→/Individual Freedom→/Social Integrity

/Rule of Law→/Social Integrity

or

There can be no Social Integrity without Rule of Law

AND

C

/Rule of Law→/Individual Freedom→/Social Integrity→/Good Life

/Rule of Law→/Good Life

or

One cannot pursue the good life without the rule of law

You get the point; I was like yeah all these are true and you're an idiot and guessed. BUT these are wrong because it is not what the QUESTION IS ASKING US TO DO. it is saying that given:

Individual Freedom →Social Integrity

And

Good Life → Social integrity

Prove that:

Individual Freedom→Rule of Law

is true

WE CANNOT USE "Individual Freedom→Rule of Law" TO PROVE THAT "Individual Freedom→Rule of Law" IS TRUE. The only way to do that without simply declaring it is to connect something to social integrity. that is as simple as drawing a line from social integrity to rule of law.

Social Integrity→Rule of Law

or

There can be no social integrity without rule of law. B

This is the simplest way to get to that conclusion in this argument.

TLDR: Don't try and use the conclusion in proving the conclusion.

I've started to think of these as if someone was arguing a point to me and I had the stick of truth and all I have to do is repeat their logic to them and it becomes true.

Supplicant: This is a mammal if it is a cow

Me from my Throne of Truth: All Cows are Mammals

LSAT Writer: Yay, you did it

Where's the lie?

C was written by a potato trying to finish a 1,000 word count essay.