#help Im not sure how B is correct? Even if you negate it and say minimum wage jobs loss in fast food restaurant was not representative of the minimum wage job availability in general, its still true that despite, the increase in minimum wage, the total number of minimum wage jobs decreased even if it was just the jobs from the fast food restaurant? It could still be possible that laissez faire economics is not entirely accurate?

For C, if you negate that that seems to destroy the argument because if a study was found that decreased the number of minimum wage employees after an increase in minimum wage, then that would be in alignment with the claim of the laissez-faire economics?

z

i think I understand now thank you. In one of the negations you posted for the marathon example, "It is not the case the faster runner sometimes wins the marathon". If however one of the answer choices was The faster runner wins the marathon, the negation of that would not destroy the argument right? The negation of that statement would be The faster runner sometimes does not win the marathon?

if we take out the word generally, would A be correct? What if we change generally to possibly easier or even probably easier? Would that wording make A correct too or no?

It seems as if that based on the premises, the negation of the example answer choices make it impossible to draw out a conclusion from the premises. If it is never the case that the faster runner wins the marathon or the case that Bill will break his ankles in the marathon, it seems that based on the premises, the conclusion just cannot reasonably be true. If it is never the case the faster runner wins the marathon or the case that Bill will break his ankles in the marathon, how can you win the marathon in the first place? I understand that the conclusion in it of itself can be true, but based on the premises given and the negation of the example answer choices given, the conclusion just seem to be impossible. On the last negation where you state the marathon will actually not happen, that seems to completely make the premises that Jack and Bill are running the marathon invalid and the conclusion that Bill will win the race impossible. These negations make it seem as if something makes it the premises invalid, or the conclusion invalid, or the conclusion invalid based on the premises given. And I do agree that the negation of these example answer choices wreck the argument. But like on question 16 of LSAT 28 section 3, where the correct answer is some people in Beethoven's time did not ingest mercury, if we negate that then that answer is everyone ingested mercury. I understand that this negation based on the premises that mercury was commonly ingested in Beethoven's time to treat venereal disease, makes that premise do nothing for the conclusion that if researchers find a trace of mercury in his hair, veneral disease did not cause his deafness. But the negation of the answer choice that everyone ingested mercury in Beethoven's time does not seem to contradict the premise or the conclusion. It could still be true that the premises that mercury was commonly ingested in Beethoven's time to treat veneral disease and the conclusion that if researchers find a trace of mercury in his hair, veneral disease did not cause his deafness. So to put it simply, if I were to negate an answer choice which makes the premise does nothing for the conclusion, despite the fact that the premise or the conclusion may or may not be true, then that negation is destroying the argument?

Yeah so, Ill try my best to explain how these types of flaw questions are definitely easier to catch than other flaw questions. As JY said, since this is the oldest trick in the book, it is best to try to always keep this flaw at the back of your mind to be ready to pull out. There is a decent chance that in these convoluted arguments, that the LSAT writers are just trying to trick you to choose a wrong answer, even if an argument is simply a sufficient necessity confusion. Some of the key clues to look for is the common if A then B, so if B then A structure. Try not to panic due to the wording of the stimulus as this specific flaw type is very cookie cutter. Its basically just: A ->B, so B->A. Sometimes the argument may say A->B, so NOT A ->NOT B. If that is the case, you would need to take the contropositive of NOT A->NOT B to turn it into B->A which translates the argument into as stated before, A->B, so B->A. In this specific stimulus, try to imagine this logical structure in your head. Read the stimulus and identify the conclusion and find some of the same words or words with VERY SIMILAR OR PRACTICALLY THE SAME meaning as the one with the premises. In this stimulus: the essayist states: The existence of a moral order in the universe is DEPENDS (logical indicator of a necessary condition) upon human beings being immortal. So this would turn into: moral order-> being immortal. As you read on and get to the conclusion, the conclusion consists of the words "immortal" and "punished". Right away you should be thinking: wait, I've read these words before. That might be a clue that the argument is committing a sufficiency necessity flaw. This might not always be the case but its best to bring this flaw out of your pocket because if the stimulus follows the logical structure of A->B, so B-> A, then you can confidently identify the flaw quickly and choose the right answer. And that is what this argument does. The conclusion states: if human souls are immortal, then it follows the bad will be punished. So, translate that into: immortal->punished. Now that does the first sentence of the argument say? It says: moral order->immortal. Now is it any type of moral order? No, its the type where the bad is eventually punished and good rewarded. So the moral type where the bad is eventually punished and the good rewarded will depend upon human souls being immortal. So this translates into: bad punished and good rewarded-->immortal. What does the conclusion say? It says: immortal->punished. Do you see the flawed structure here? A (bad punished)->B (immortal), so B (immortal)-> A (punished). If you recognize the flaw, but struggle to indentify the correct answer choice due to the convoluted wording of that answer choice, look for key words like SUFFICIENT, NECESSARY, REQUIRED, and so on. In this stimulus the answer choice states: From an assertion that something is NECESSARY to a moral order, the thing is SUFFICIENT for the element of the moral order being recognized. If this correct answer choice was worded differently like, From an assertion that something is REQUIRED to a moral order, that thing is ENOUGH for the elemtn of the moral order being recognized. Hope this helps.

so the premise does not have to make the conclusion impossible for a negation to wreck the argument? It just has to at least make the existence of a premise cause a person to have a "so what" expression" in regards to the strength of support to conclusion?

is C wrong because a correlation is also considered a relation? When the AC says there is a relation between driving speed and number of automobile accidents, a correlation could be considered a relation? #help

pretty sure only if implies a necessary condition

congrats

Congrats yo

Wow congratulations!. Im glad everything worked well and paid off.

Ok thank you

Also if I think too hard about irrelevant answer choices, I may get that answer right on that problem but my thought process gets disrupted due to mental exhaustion on the questions that come after even on blind review.

#help How should I know to ignore little words like VERY LITTLE class time? I did not know we had to assume VERY LITTLE class time on statistics. Never mind I get it now.

I cannot wait to get over these problem sets. JEEZ.

Wow you can't even match the contrapositive??? How is that even realistic to the real world?

I think a tip to getting this right is to write some numbers down just like JY did. This helped me alot in getting the right answer on this question as well as other math questions