#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?

#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.

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?

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

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?

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

Ill definitely try my best to embed the 21 common argument flaws in my head. I definintely understand what the flaws are talking about. But the application of those flaws have been tough in a timed setting. I guess that will come with more practice

Unless the flaw questions are sufficiency necessity confusions which for some reason, my comfort zone. (not sure why). But some of the other questions with convoluted answer choices seem to be confusing. For the flaw questions I have been doing, there seems to be no correct answer in which an answer choice that goes like... CONFUSING one claim for another or ASSUMING what its trying to prove. Are there questions where these two are correct answers?

thank you. I think the problem is that in a blind review setting,the amount of analysis Ive been doing to answer a flaw question correct works. But in a timed setting, I cannot analyize the answer choices and the questions fast enough. The flaw does not initially jump out at me.

Sufficiency necessity questions are my favorite. Other flaw questions suck

Ahh. these sufficiency necessity flaws are the most comfortable for me. some of these other flaw questions make my life miserable

is this a red herring argument?#help

#help if A were to say, "The older the person, the wider the person", then the AC would be right right?

This question is basically: Which one of the following answer choices is MOST strongly rejected from the stimulus? So there can be little room for assumptions.

Well I can see the rest of the answers do not work, C doesn't seem to make much sense either. So were saying: If the Reinzi was not sunk by sabatoge, the water would have flooded into it very fast. So that means regarding the contrapositive: If the water would not have flooded into it very fast, then the Reinzi was sunk by sabatoge. How can we infer that it sunk by sabatoge? The stimulus states that the ship sinking as a result of a hole in its hull could POSSIBLY have been by sabatoge. Also, full flooding CAN be achieved by sabatoge. In both scenarios, sabatoge seems like an opion that can or cannot happen. #help

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.