I also chose (C) and rejected (B) for a similar reason mentioned by many people here (i.e., "results from" implies a causal relationship, which was not mentioned in the stim). This is my attempt to explain why (C) is wrong and (B) is right.

Why is C wrong?

• Broader scope: people with amusia could be a subset of people who unable to tell pitches apart

• We don’t know if people can actually tell the pitches apart now based on timing

Why is B right?

• Amusia could be the effect / end result of something, but the cause clearly didn’t impact the ability to discern timing

• Analogy: Congestion made it hard for me to breathe, but I can still move my arm

  • Whatever caused my congestion didn't impact my ability to move my arm, because I can still move it with congestion

Stim Breakdown

(1) + (2) Learning to read alphabetic language → phonemic awareness (language broken into component sounds) + how sounds are represented by letters

(3) taught by whole-language method <-s-> learn to read alphabetic languages

What we can infer - combining (1), (2), and (3):

Taught by whole-language method <-s-> phonemic awareness + how sounds are represented by letters

AC Breakdown:

(A) - “invariably”: too strong to support this

(B) - two issues:

1. this is drawing a cause-and-effect relationship: whole-language methods causes teaching how sounds are represented by letters; not supported

2. Knowing how sounds are represented by letters is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one for learning to read an alphabetic language

(C) - this is the sufficiency-necessity confusion version of (1) + (2)

(1) + (2): A → B + C

      (C) is /A → /B + /C

(D) - supported by what we inferred: some children who are taught by whole-language method knows how sounds are represented by letters

(E) - same as the first issue of (B); the cause-and-effect relationship is not supported

Stim Breakdown:

Requirements:

1. Report gunshots to police

2. Report infectious diseases to health authorities

Task: find the AC that supports both these requirements and the view that a physician’s responding to the request does violate medical ethics

AC Breakdown:

(A) - this is the opposite of the task; this is saying that not reporting to the police is unethical

(B) - this is not compatible with the requirements outlined

(C) - this is the right answer for the following reasons:

1. Physicians should not disclose patients’ identities except in the case of gunshot wounds - compatible with (1) 

2. The scope of this AC limits to disclosing to “law-enforcement authority”; this restriction is compatible to (2) while applies to the stimulus (i.e., police)

(D) - this is not compatible with the requirements outlined; the requirements are not related to patients’ medical treatments

(E) - again, this is not compatible with the requirements

I was between A and C and I chose C. Here is my attempt to explain why A is right and C is wrong.

Why is (C) wrong?

• The passage is about why deconstructionists are very particular about the use of certain languages. Even though innovation was mentioned in the first paragraph, it’s not a part of the main point

Why is (A) right?

• Deconstructionists are very particular about the terminology they use - implies their true purpose (i.e., The deconstructionist, by implication, is both judge and executioner who leaves a text totally dismantled, if not reduced to a pile of rubble)

I didn't like A because I wasn't sure what "true nature of deconstructionists's endeavor" entails / feels very strong. Reflecting back, I don't think I fully understood what the main point is.

(I was between A and B - Note to self: compare the 2 ACs and see what the differences are)

Stim Breakdown:

Prem:

• The owners don’t want to renovate the apartment because the economics wouldn’t make sense

• However, renovating would cause the increase of rent of surrounding housing, which is also owned by them 

Concl:

• The owners should renovate

Logic Type:

• Pointing out additional considerations that someone has not previously thought of

• Suggest someone doing something opposite of what they plan to do

AC Breakdown:

(A) - fit our logic type. John should have the surgery because it will enable him to exercise regularly (additional consideration)

(B) - this doesn’t exactly fit our logic type, because this is a commentary on something that has already happened. 

(C) - this AC doesn’t introduce an additional consideration that is different from having a crack. This just merely points out the implication of having a crack

(D) - this is a phenomenon-hypothesis logic type - doesn't match our logic type

(E) - this AC doesn’t suggest the opposite of what the fruit company wants to do - doesn't match our logic type

Stim Breakdown

Prem:

1. Pure free market → max total utility (MTU)

   (initially I thought pure free market is the necessary condition for MTU because of the word "only". HOWEVER, upon reading again, pure free market is the sufficient condition because of the word "assured". So what the stim is really saying is pure free market is the only factor that ensures MTU. There's no other factors that can guarantee MTU)

2. Other market ←s→ max total utility (MTU)

Concl:

• /[pure free market] → /[most likely to bring MTU]

Flaw:

• Even though pure free market guarantees max total utility, why does it mean that pure free market is also the most likely way to achieve MTU

AC Breakdown:

(A) - the stim doesn’t assume that any country that doesn’t have a free market has a highly controlled economy; there’s no support in the stim - descriptively inaccurate

(B) - there’s no mention of utility distribution

(C) - two issues:

• Do we know what's most likely to achieve MTU? The stim only mentioned this concept in the conclusion randomly

• Even let’s assume that pure free market is the most likely way to achieve MTU, the author doesn’t fail to consider other ways to achieve MTU - “although other types of economies might be able to achieve it”

(D) - our identified flaw! 

(E) - irrelevant - we are not talking about the drawbacks of MTU here

Note to self - don't just look at conditional logic indicators on a surface level. Need to actually understand what's saying

TLDR / Note to self - take some time to identify the flaw / distill the logic type and breathe.

I was initially so confused by this Q and chose (A). But when I came back several hours later, it became much clearer to me. Here's my attempt to explain this Q.

Stim Breakdown:

Prem:

1. Both Dr. G’s and Prof. H’s theories could be right

2. Predictions these theories make on the results of a planned experiment cannot be both true

Concl:

• The result of the experiment will determine which theory is right

Flaw:

• Why is this experiment the final authority to determine which theory is right? Maybe it’s a flawed experiment…

AC Breakdown:

(A) - conclusion is “at least one of them has an erroneous method” - this means both of them could be wrong. Not the same conclusion as the stim

(B) - it has the wrong flaw: there’s no third party that determines whether Jane or David is right

• Maybe you thought the description they provide serves as the “third party”, but I would challenge that Jane’s description does not necessarily conflict with David’s. What if Jane just provide descriptions that are actually both consistent with beech and elm (e.g., the tree has green leaves)

(C) - doesn’t mirror the stim. Jane’s and David’s accounts need to be in conflict with each other

(D) - don’t think there’s a flaw here. This is a legit argument

(E) - this mirrors the stim, that Maria is the third party and she is the ultimate authority to decide who is right. However, of course, she could be wrong. 

I initially chose A as well, but here is my explanation why A, B, D, and E are wrong and C is correct.

Stim Breakdown:

Yolanda’s argument:

Prem:

• Joyriding endangers people

• Gaining access to computer w/o authorization only harms people

Concl:

• Joyriding is more dangerous

Arjun’s argument:

Prem:

• Unauthorized use of medical record systems could damage data that human lives depend

Concl:

• Unauthorized crimes cause harm to people

AC Breakdown:

(A) - The distinction in Yolanda’s argument (i.e., danger of joyriding vs. danger of gaining computer access) doesn’t affect Arjun’s argument.

Arjun’s conclusion is that computer crimes also cause harm to people, not that computer crimes cause at least as much harm as joyriding

(B) - Arjun DOES provide evidence against Yolanda’s argument (i.e., an example of how a computer crime could harm people)

(C) - just because something could happen doesn’t mean it will happen 

(D) - there’s no sufficiency-necessity confusion here

(E) - the example Arjun provided IS consistent with his conclusion

Congrats!!! Is there a way we can enter these lotteries?

Stim Breakdown

Prem:

(1) 2 computers run the same program with fixed time per move 

(2) Faster computer can examine more moves within a fixed time

Concl:

• Faster computer is more likely to win

------------------------------------------------------------

Constant: program, time

Variable: computer speed

AC Breakdown

(A) - this is comparing 2 programs on the same computer under the same time - different situation as the stim

(B) - we don’t know anything about the impact of computer speed on whether a program can run on that computer or not

(C) - one program under fixed time → same situation as the stim

(D) - different programs, different computers, same time → different situation as the stim

(E) - equal chance of winning - too strong

Key Takeaway: be aware of the scope!

Stim Breakdown:

1. Mitters are easier on car finishes than brushes

2. Many new cars have clear-coat finishes and they are easier to be scratched than older finishes

AC Breakdown:

(A) - cars could be scratched for a number of reasons other than from car washes. We don't know how cars on the road got scratches. This is not supported

(B) - we don't know the motivation behind the reasons why brushless car washes were introduced

(C) - I first thought this is quite a strong statement. Mitters are easier on car finishes, but it doesn’t mean they don’t produce any visible scratches. Will leave for now

(D) - we don’t know anything about effectiveness of mitters or brushes

(E) - We don’t know anything about # of cars with clear-coat finishes. We just know there are many

Revisit (C) - this is the most supported out of all the ACs. It’s not unreasonable to infer (C), whereas the other ACs are just simply not supported at all.

Note to self: make sure to read all the ACs before definitively eliminating an AC

Stim Breakdown:

Prem:

(1) Values of a social system are reflected in the prestige of jobs / economic roles

Concl:

Labor-saving tech --> undermine values of social systems

AC Breakdown:

(A) - we don't know that. There could be other non-tech factors that alter societal values

(B) - again, we don't know that. We are only focusing on labor-saving tech. We don't know anything about all other types of tech

(C) - /[change in societal values] --> /[tech can eliminate roles]

• this is essentially the contrapositive of the conclusion

(D) - Two reasons I don't like this AC

• What does a technologically advanced society mean? Does it mean it has labor-saving technology? IMO not necessarily

• a value being undermined is not the same as there's little importance being placed on the value

(E) - we don't know if a labor-saving tech is developed in a foreign society

I also chose (D) over (B)... Here is why (D) is wrong:

Stim Breakdown:

Prem:

(1) the costumes have no artistic significance outside of performance --> W believes museum wasted money

(2) displaying them in public is the only way making them public

Concl:

Museum didn't waste money

Why (D) is wrong?

(D) is not descriptively correct - R didn't address W's argument at all.

For (D) to be right, R would need to say something undermining W's argument (e.g., "but artistic significance is not the only factor to determine if a purchase is a waste of money")

Key Takeaway:

• Probably good to outline what the premises and the conclusions are

• Paraphrase the stim into my own language

(I was between A and B for this Q)

Stim Breakdown

Prem:

(1) Forest fires are required for forests to flourish, because they facilitate opening and spreading of seed pods, prevent overabundance of insects, and promote bio diversity.

Concl:

• Systematic attempts to control fires by humans are ill-advised and short-sighted

AC Breakdown:

(A) - this only touches upon one of the benefits of the fires. It doesn’t guarantee the conclusion that it’s ill-advised. What if systematic attempts to control fires have benefits for the forests?

[Minor point] “tend to” is quite weak - this demonstrates a correlational relationship, not guarantees an outcome

(B) - protection of the forests and their ecosystem is the only reason we should control fire. However, we know that controlling the fires would have the opposite effect. Therefore, we should not do so. 

Stim Breakdown:

Prem:

(1) a study shows that raising speed limit to reflect actual speed reduces accident rate

(2) Actual speed is 75 mph

Concl:

uniform national speed should be 75 mph

I was between B and E and here is my attempt to explain:

(B) - this is the wrong emphasis. Sure, we should uniformly apply the speed across the nation, but what justification we have to set the speed limit to 75 mph? Why can't be a lower or higher umber?

(E) - this is the subtle justification. Because doing so would reduce accident rate, we need to adopt this practice.

Stim Breakdown

Prem:

1. Romantics believe: imperfect institution –cause→ evil people

2. Institutions are collections of people

Concl:

• Romantics are wrong

(interpretation: institutions do NOT cause people to be evil)

AC Breakdown:

(A) - this is not supported / almost anti-supported. 

• We are NOT comparing how much evil is done by society vs. individuals

• If this the case, it kind of supports that institution does cause evilness to some extent

(B) - this doesn’t support the conclusion why institution is the not the cause of evilness

(C) - this is not about people “should do” vs. “should not do”; again, it doesn’t explain why institution is not the cause here

(D) - again, this doesn’t explain why the institution is not the cause of evilness. It could be that institutions gauge the values, but we don’t know if they are the cause of those values

• [minor point] It’s also alarming that it says “surest” → it’s not reflected in the stimulus

(E) - this is the confusing way of saying the institution (the whole) doesn’t cause the properties (being evil) of the things (individuals) they compose it.

Stim Breakdown:

Prem:

• Short-term consequences of a new law are probably painful

• Long-term benefits of a new law are initially obscure

Concl:

• New laws need an immunity period (like a trial period) except during dire situations

• Aka - let’s not repeal the new laws in the short term unless dire situations

AC Breakdown

(A) - We don’t know if voters’ opinions ever are irrelevant in deciding whether to retain the law or not. We just know that in the short term, voters’ opinions might not be the reason to repeal a new law

(B) - this highlight that the politician believes that long-term benefits of a new law could outweigh the potential short-term pain - therefore, she’s proposing an immunity period

(C) - we don’t know anything about the difficulty of law passage

(D) - we don’t know anything about short-term consequences of law repeal

(E) - this doesn’t give us the justification why we need an immunity period for a new law / why we should repeal the law in the short-term,  but rather the law itself should achieve certain goals. 

Stim Breakdown:

(1) Generous → [intend to benefit] AND [worth more than expected]

Contrapositive of (1):

/[intend to benefit] OR /[worth more than expected] → /[generous]

(2) [given to benefit recipient] OR [less valuable than customary] → [selfish]

AC Breakdown:

(A) - based on the conclusion, it’s trying to trigger (2)

Paid nothing for the ticket is not the same as the ticket is less valuable. In fact, we know the ticket is quite expensive.

(B) - based on the conclusion, it’s trying to trigger (2)

Emily’s brother being hurt and offended doesn’t trigger the sufficient condition of (2)

(C) - the conclusion is Amanda’s gift is generous, but we don’t have any principle that concludes something being generous

(D) - uh this one is subtle. Based on the conclusion, it’s trying to trigger the contrapositive of (1)

The gift is not worth more than expected, because every child in the family got the same gift

(E) - Based on the conclusion, it’s trying to trigger the contrapositive of (1). 

It didn’t benefit the recipient is not the same as it didn’t intend to benefit the recipient. Intention and outcomes are different

Uh I chose (D) for this one - here is my attempt to justify why LSAC is right and I'm dumb :(

Passage summary:

• Kant’s view: if you are a rational person, and you act immorally to other people, you give other people the right to act immorally towards you.

• Passage A’s view: just because a harmless liar lies to you doesn’t mean you can lie to him back

Task:

Under what circumstance would Kant and Passage A agree with each other (i.e., that you are not justified to lie a liar back)

AC Breakdown:

(A) - doesn’t reconcile the two views; this most likely conflicts with Kant’s view (why is it irrational to respond a wrong with a wrong)

(B) - this is saying the liar is irrational; in Kant’s view, it might not be justified to lie to a liar if the liar is not rational / out of scope of Kant’s view

(C) - if this is the case, then in Kant’s view, we can lie to the liars, which is in conflict with Passage A’s view

(D) - this just simply means that we can lie back, but we don’t have to. This would be in conflict with Passage (A)’s view, that we cannot lie back / it’s not justified to lie back

(E) - it doesn’t reconcile the 2 views; it doesn’t address whether it’s justified to lie back

I initially chose (A) :( Here is my explanation why (D) is right after some reflection:

Passage (A)’s overall structure:

• St’ Augustine’s view: by responding a wrong with a wrong is to accept a lower standard

• Other people’s view (OPV): responding a wrong with a wrong is actually justified

• Author’s point of view (APV): Hmm, we have to consider the harm of doing a wrong in general though

Passage (B)’s overall structure:

• Kant’s view: when a rational person acts immoral to others → that person allows others to do the same to him because of virtue of being rational

• OPV: interprets Kant’s view as we need to do the same immoral act as punishment (e.g., an eye for an eye)

• APV: If OPV is right, then we have to do everything that a rational person does (not just the immoral acts) → refute OPV’s interpretation (Kant’s view is not about a duty, but a right)

AC Breakdown:

(A) - For (A) to be right, we need the following structure:

• I believe the following: xxxx

• I know some people will object because xxxx

• However, their objection is not valid because xxx

  However, the authors of both passages didn't articulate their views until after OPVs / we don't know what their views are in the beginning

(B) - we don't have analogy in Passage (B)

(C) - in Passage (A), the author uses liar to illustrate the overall principle; however, in Passage (B), we don't have a specific case / immoral act / situation

(D) -

• Unreasonable consequences in Passage (A): we haven’t thought of the consequences of doing harm in general

• Unreasonable consequences in Passage (B): we have do everything a rational person does, regardless it’s good or bad

(E) - there's no mention of new definition in Passage (A)

Stim Breakdown:

Prem:

• It’s hard to prove if a painting is painted by a particular artist sometimes

• However, attribution to a particular artist carries the continuity of the historical assumption (e.g., it was always assumed that this is painted by Monet)

• If someone wants to dispute it, they have to provide convincing evidence

Concl:

• Traditional attribution has a special weight

Task: weaken this argument / why we SHOULD NOT trust traditional attribution

AC Breakdown:

(A) - traditional attribution is flawed; art dealers have always had incentives to lie about the origin - weaken

(B) - this strengthens the argument / gives credence to why traditional attribution should have a special weight

(C) - doesn’t weaken; very unclear on whether we should trust the tradition or not

(D) - doesn’t weaken; this indicates the impact of attribution on perceptions; it doesn’t give reason to question the traditional attribution

(E) - similar to (B); it gives credence why we should trust traditional attribution

Stim Breakdown:

Prem:

(1) Most mammals avoid eating angiosperms because of the bitter taste

(2) Mammals can detoxify the drugs in angiosperms

(3) Dinosaurs can neither taste bitterness nor detox the drug

(4) Dinosaur fossils are contorted

Concl:

• Dinosaurs went extinct because of ingesting angiosperms

Assumption / Gap

• Dinosaurs ate angiosperms

• Dinosaurs were found contorted because they died of drug toxicity from angiosperms

AC breakdown:

(A) - this weakens the gap / assumption. Since mammals can detox the drug but they still died in contorted positions, this means that dying in a contorted position doesn’t mean dying from drug toxicity → questioning our assumption above

(B) - irrelevant - angiosperms can be nutritious but still toxic to dinosaurs (JY's explanation with cyanide-laced steak is a vivid example)

(C) - this kind of strengthens - this indicates that dinosaurs ate angiosperms

(D)- irrelevant - the point of issue here is about angiosperms; we don’t care about other poisonous plants

(E) - irrelevant - we care about why dinosaurs died because of angiosperms (we don’t even know if dinosaurs ate angiosperms in the first place)

Stim Breakdown:

Prem:

Two factors / phenomena:

(1) Antismoking campaign

(2) A cigarette pack is 20 cents more expensive

Result:

# of people who smoke declined by 3% (e.g., 100 people smoked a year ago vs. 97 people smoke this year)

Conclusion:

Antismoking campaign causes the decline

Gap / How to strengthen:

• We need to rule out that (2) is not the reason why there’s a decline

AC Breakdown:

(A) - Irrelevant; we are only focusing on people who smoke cigarettes

(B) - Irrelevant; we are trying to explain why there’s a decline of # of smokers, not why smokers are smoking less

(C) - this is tricking us to make assumptions that there’s a link between smoking and chronic respiratory ailment. In addition, it doesn’t strengthen the conclusion why the antismoking campaign leads to the decline

(D) - this eliminates (2). Merchants reduce the price so that a pack of cigarette costs the same as before

(E) - this weakens the argument. (E) suggests that price, not the antismoking campaign, might be the reason why there are fewer smokers.

This question is about how classical social movement is not appropriate. We need to find the answer through the critiques from political theorists.

Political theorists' POV:

(1) classic theories simply focus on psychological dysfunctions, instead of the broader and complex social situations

(2) unusual social conditions / "strains" are always present, but social movement is not. How do we know which ones prompted social movements?

AC Breakdown:

(A) - if an election focuses on personalities (psychologically-related), then classic theories are appropriate (based on (1))

(B) - this is exactly (2)... it's not enough to just have an unusual condition / strain --> therefore classic theories are not enough to explain elections

(C) - similar to (A). If this is true, then classic theories are appropriate

(D) & (E) - momentous developments / # of social movements are irrelevant

Thank you! Super grateful to the 7Sage team and this community for making the LSAT journey more bearable 🥹