Side note: I haven't seen this type of Qs in the new PTs...This is a parallel method of reasoning Q.

Stim Breakdown:

Pamela:

Prem:

• Business has an interest in enabling employees to care for their children, because these children are future customers / employees

Concl:

• Business should adopt child-care friendly policies

Lee:

Prem:

• These children will not be the only customers / employees of the business

Concl:

• Company doesn't have advantage in adopting these policies

Method of Reasoning: pointing out additional factors that will impact the business

AC Breakdown:

(A) - we are not introducing a new additional consideration here. The MoR of A is the alternative would be even worse

(B) - additional factor / consideration (i.e., "pollutions caused by others") is introduced - so yayay correct AC

(C) - this is attacking the assumption of the arg

(D) - this is refuting the intermediate concl (i.e., no one would know what the truth is)

(E) - this is attacking the assumption that historically there were changes, therefore there will be changes in the future

Stim Breakdown:

Pedro:

Prem:

• disposable diapers are filling landfills so quickly

Concl:

• people must stop buying disposable diapers

Maria:

Prem:

• Washing cloths diapers requires energy + pollute water

• Also, diaper services pollute air and cause traffic congestion

Task: method of reasoning

AC Breakdown:

(A) - Maria doesn't disagree with Pedro's arg at all; she doesn't think he's exaggerating the negative consequences of disposable diapers

(B) - correct AC - Maria points out that Pedro doesn't consider the negative consequences of the cloths diaper. Pedro is simply eliminating the alternatives - so many bad consequences with disposable diapers, therefore the alternative must be better. Maria is saying there are bad consequences for the alternative too

(C) - there's no ambiguity. We know exactly what they are

(D) - this is a trap answer, but we actually don't know in Maria's opinion, which one is worse for the environment. She's simply pointing out that there are neg consequences for cloths diapers too

(E) - we don't know anything about economic advantage

Stim Breakdown:

Prem:

• Each pair of 2-year old and his dad used a unique rolling pin to make pies (aww so cute)

• each time a 2 year-old used a rolling pin, his dad yelled "rolling pin"

• However, the children can only identify the rolling pins they used when identifying all the rolling pins

AC Breakdown:

(A) - not supported - the children may very well have good grasp of what a rolling pin does

(B) - this is correct - because the children only chose the rolling pins that they used. They didn't understand rolling pin can be the name of the other rolling pins they didn't use. In another word, they don't know rolling pin is a category of objects

(C) - not supported - we don't know if children understood that

(D) - this is tricky, but the scope is too broad. The AC is saying "utensils", but the stim only talks about rolling pins. The children might be able to identify forks that other children used

(E) - anti-supported. If this is true, then the children would just randomly pick a rolling pin, not the one they used

Side note: I haven't seen any flaw except Q in the new PTs, so hopefully it stays that way...(even though the flaw itself is pretty standard)

Stim Breakdown:

Prem:

(1) encourage freedom of thought --> creativity flourish

(2) creativity flourished in 18th century US

Concl:

• freedom thought was encouraged

Flaw: necessity - sufficiency confusion

AC Breakdown:

(A) - same flaw

Prem:

• safer --> airfares must rise

• airfare raised

Concl: safer

(B) - same flaw

Prem:

• police dept increase efficiency --> crime rate goes down

• crime rate is down

Concl:

• police department increase efficiency

(C) - same flaw

Prem:

• interested in wildlife preservation --> don't hunt for big games

• Gerda doesn't hunt big games

Concl:

• she's interested in wildlife preservation

(D) - same flaw

Prem:

• safe to drink --> not marked as poison

• not marked as poison

Concl:

• safe to drink

(E) - this arg doesn't have flaw

Prem:

• democratic --> citizens has meaningful effect on govt

• /[citizen has effect on govt]

Concl:

• not democratic

Stim Breakdown:

Prem:

(1) the arg agrees with the claim "the question of whether intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is imprecise"

(2) find intelligent life --> leave definition open

contrapositive:

/[leave definition open] --> /[find intelligent life]

rephrase (2):

if we define "intelligent life" more precisely, then our definition would not be open, then we are less likely to find intelligent life

Concl:

• We cannot just define "intelligent life" more precisely

AC Breakdown:

(A) - the arg doesn't show claim to be irrelevant; in fact, it's the heart of the arg

(B) - there's no example mentioned

(C) - two issues with this AC:

1. the current definition is not clearly defined, but that doesn't mean it CANNOT be adequately defined

2. this is not the heart of the argument. The argument is saying even if the definition is more precise, it's still have undesirable consequences

(D) - this is the correct AC. If we were to narrow the definition of "intelligent life", then we are less likely to find intelligent life, which counters our objectives

(E) - there's no mention of evidence in the arg

Key Takeaway:

I got this Q wrong because I didn't fully understand the stim and misidentified the conclusion. Now coming back the second time, I had much clearer understanding of the stim.

Stim Breakdown:

Prem:

• 100 people who don't use coke --> 5 tested positive (false positive)

• 100 people who do use coke --> 95 tested positive

Concl:

• when tested randomly, most people test positive will be people who use coke

Gap / Initial thought:

• what if the entire population do not use coke? Then we will have 5 people who will test false positive -> then our conclusion is wrong

AC Breakdown:

(A) - wrong flaw. This AC means that our conclusion is "someone should do something" from a premise that is simply prescriptive.

(B) - descriptively inaccurate. The conclusion is about "vast majority of the population who test positive". It doesn't say "every member of the population"

(C) - correct flaw - the arg assumes that most, if not all people use coke, but that's not the case (see the gap)

(D) - the premise takes that into account - 1% of people who use coke don't test positive

(E) - irrelevant / descriptively inaccurate - the argument doesn't advocate test

(I just focused on the editor's argument, since that's the scope of the question)

Stim Breakdown:

Prem:

(1) some advertisers pressure us to give them favorable mentions

(2) effective advertising vehicle --> loyal readership

(3) readers suspect our integrity was compromised --> lose readership

combine (2) + (3):

readers suspect our integrity was comprised --> lose readership --> /[effective advertising vehicle]

Concl:

• their wishes are against their interests

Gap / Initial thought:

• favorable mentions --> readers suspect our integrity was compromised

• /[effective advertising vehicle] --> against their interests

AC Breakdown

(A) (D) and (E) - irrelevant to the arg

(B) - /[compromise integrity] --> /[favorable mentions]

contrapositive:

favorable mentions --> compromise integrity

• negate: the magazine can give some favorable mentions without compromising integrity (not all / not any = some not)

• If above is true, it could be that but some other favorable mentions can still compromise integrity --> the argument still holds

(C) -

• negate: value of favorable mention to advertisers >= value of being effective advertising vehicles

• this destroys the argument - favorable mentions would not be against their interests

Key Takeaway:

• I quickly eliminated (C) because it was a comparison; I didn't give it warranted attention

I used POE for this Q - I was having a hard time understanding what A is saying, but the rest of ACs are just wrong.

Stim Breakdown:

Prem:

(1) earliest known land animal species show highly evolved adaptations based on fossil evidence

(2) Aquatic and amphibious animals don't exhibit these adaptations

Concl:

• early land animal species must have evolved very quickly

Initial thought:

• "earliest known species" vs."early species" - there could be early species of animals we don't know yet

• leaving aquatic environment - how do we know that land animals evolve from aquatic animals

AC Breakdown:

(A) -

• negate: known fossils from early land animals do not include animals that lived soon after land animals leaving aquatic environment

• Then, the earliest land animals could be from 600 millions years ago, but we don't have any fossil of them. The adaptations we saw from the 400-million fossils could be the result of 200-million years of adaptations --> destroy the arg

(B) - irrelevant - we don't care the # of species the fossils represent

(C) - irrelevant - we don't care about plants

(D) - irrelevant - we don't care about "present-day species"

(E) -

• negate: there were animals that lived in both land and water

• it doesn't destroy or even impact the argument

Stim Breakdown:

(N2: nitrogen; CH4: methane; CO: carbon monoxide)

Prem:

(1) there's frozen N2, CH4, and CO on Pluto's surface

(2) proportion of gas in atmosphere depends on how quickly ice vaporizes

Concl:

• Pluto's atmosphere is made up of N2 > CO > CH4 (in this order)

AC Breakdown:

(A) - it could very well be that there's more frozen N2 than frozen CO or frozen CH4 - not necessary

(B) - irrelevant

(C) -

• negate: there's a frozen gas that vaporizes more quickly than CH4, but less quickly than CO

• If this is the case, then we would see this gas in the atmosphere --> the astronomer's conclusion would mention this gas

(D) - not necessarily - a planet can have N2 in its atmosphere, but it doesn't have frozen N2

(E) - irrelevant - we are not talking about Solar System

Sending big hugs to you and sorry for your loss! I've learned in the past year is that it's ok to take breaks and actually it would be counter-intuitive to force yourself to stop feeling / stop crying / force yourself studying. If you are applying for the next cycle, it's completely ok to take it later this year when you are better mentally 🩵 YOU GOT THIS!

Also - very very important: please please please do a lot of self-care / go outside / exercise / be with friends and family / be gentle with yourself!

Stim Breakdown:

Prem:

(1) Group 1: 100 people habitually stretch before jogging

(2) Group 2: 100 people don't stretch before jogging

(3) Group 1 and 2 have the same # injuries

Concl:

Stretch doesn't help prevent injuries

Initial thinking:

• The assumption here is that these people have the same conditions / we are assuming Group 2 is the control group

• what if people in group 1 don't stretch, they might incur more injuries

• this is similar to the hours of sleep vs. melatonin type of questions

AC Breakdown:

(A) - not sure how this weakens / relevant. We are comparing group 1 vs. 2, not 1 + 2 vs. the rest of population

(B) - we don't care about the difficulty of stretching; we care about whether they stretch or not

(C) - this strengthens the argument - stretching is useless

(D) - attacking our assumption here - if they don't stretch, they might sustain more injuries

(E) - for certain forms of exercise - is jogging a part of those exercises? we don't know / this requires unwarranted assumptions

Stim Breakdown:

Prem:

• Use car maintenance example to emphasize the importance of long-term thinking

• Other cities devoted resources for long-term economic planning, and got a huge return

Concl:

• (intermediate): the investment of hiring an advisor will have a big payoff

• (overall): the council should be praised for this investment decision

AC Breakdown:

I see analogy as a ancillary tool, not as a main part of the argument. The whole purpose of analogy is to help understand the premise better. Therefore, any attack on the analogy itself is not really a weakener.

(A) - attack on the analogy itself; doesn't weaken the argument

(B) - this weakens, because there could be negative consequences if we follow what other cities do.

Example: Warren Buffet invested in crypto 5 years ago. Even though he lost money initially, his return on crypto is 90%. Therefore, everyone should do the same - investing in crypto

However, Warren Buffet has a lot of discretionary income and he can afford to invest. This advice is not applicable for a family who is struggling to feed their children.

(C) - same as (A)

(D) - this doesn't weaken the argument. Many city councils - it could be some other cities' councils. This AC arguably strengthens the argument, because it shows how the columnist's city council thinks in longer term than other city councils

(E) - this is already implied in the stim ("likely to have a big payoff in several years")

Stim Breakdown

Prem:

Phenomenon: there's a correlation between male cats with disease X and unusually large nuclei

Concl:

We can use the size of nuclei to identify if the male cats have X

AC Breakdown:

(A) - we are talking about male cats here; female cats are irrelevant

(B) - 2 reasons why I don't like this AC:

• The correlation between the size of nuclei and X still holds, even though some cats also have disease Z

  A made-up example: people with Alzheimer's have smaller brain gray matters. Some Alzheimer's patients also have skin lesions and we don't know why.

  Even though we don't know where the skin lesions come from, but if we simply look at the brain scan of a person, and his / her brain gray matter is smaller than usual, then it's reasonable to think this person has Alzheimer's.

• "many" - "many" just means "some" on the LSAT. These male cats with both X and Z could just be a very small portion of the overall male cat population with X

(C) - again, we are talking about male cats here. Female cats are irrelevant

(D) - 0.5% of male cats have larger nuclei - a small portion of the overall population. They could simply be outliers / don't wreck the correlation. (this is similar to E in the nightlight Q - PT124.S1.Q8)

(E) - this is essentially saying X should not impact the nucleus at all - it could simply be a coincidence that there's a correlation between the nuclei size and X

I got this Q wrong, because I didn't like any of the ACs and I chose one that I hated the least :(

Stim Breakdown:

Phenomenon: Akabe people drink very small amount of tea every morning

Hypothesis: The tea contains high caffeine, and they don't want caffeine to ruin their daily tasks

Initial thought:

How to weaken phenomenon-hypothesis argument: introduce an alternative explanation

AC Breakdown:

(A) - this doesn't weaken the argument. This doesn't provide an alternative explanation of why they drink so little tea

(B) - So what they also drink at night? (In Europe, people drink espresso after dinner late at night) The hypothesis / explanations still holds, that they drink little in the morning to avoid jittering

(C) - I initially thought this is an irrelevant AC... but this offers the explanation that it's not caffeine that they fear in the morning, but the narcotics / they don't want to get coked up in the morning

(D) - again, this just doesn't weaken / introduce an alternative explanation

(E) - same as (D); not an alternative explanation

Stim Breakdown:

Politician:

Prem:

Because of the mandatory jail sentence, we don't have a dichotomy of justice systems anymore

Concl:

the mandatory jail sentence makes our justice system better

Advocate:

Prem:

Mandatory jail sentence takes away judges' power, and that results in juries being more inclined to acquit defendants, and justice is not served

Concl:

the mandatory jail sentence needs to be repealed

AC Breakdown:

(A) - this is saying that if there's a tiny doubt that the defendant is guilty, then the defendant should be acquitted. In another word, if we are not 10000% sure that the defendant is guilty, then he/she should be freed. This arguably weakens the politician's argument / opposite of what the task is

(B) - irrelevant to the argument - we are not talking about whether the judges know what to do vs. not to do

(C) - irrelevant - we are not talking about legal expertise of the juries; we care if the mandatory jail sentence is a good idea or not

(D) - this would strengthen the advocate / opposite of what the task is. If this is true, then we should repeal the law as soon as possible

(E) -

Reverse changes --> cannot make the undesirable consequence better through other means

This is the best AC. We recognize that because of juries behaviors, justice might not be served. However, we don't know if there are ways to ameliorate these consequences / mitigate these consequences yet. Hence, it's premature to simply repeal the jail sentence

Stim Breakdown:

Prem:

(1) Teenage drivers make up 7% of drivers in total

(2) Teenage drivers are responsible for 14% of fatalities

Concl:

Intermediate: Teenage drivers suck at driving

Overall: restrictions should be placed on teenagers' DL

AC Breakdown:

(A) - weaken; the cars are older and maybe they are not easy to brake

(B) - weaken; this introduces an alternative explanation - that it's not about the driving skills, but about they don't wear seat belts

(C) - weaken; teenagers in general drive more, and therefore, the likelihood of them getting into accidents is higher

(D) - this is implied in the stim - it doesn't weaken

(E) - weaken; this also introduces an alternative explanation.

For example, teenagers on average like to cram 10 people in a car, whereas adults on average drive with no passengers. If there is a serious accident, it's more likely that more people will die in a teenager's car. The higher fatality rate has nothing to do with teenagers' driving skills

This is a weird Q - this is more a Point at Issue / Disagreement Q than a Weakening Q imo...

Task: which one of the following is Health Association's conclusion, and that the critic weakens that conclusion

Stim Breakdown

Health Association (HA):

Prem: Based on studies, people who stop eating meat and only eat fruits and vegs suffer no ill effects

Concl: people can adopt veg diet without ill effects

Critic:

Well actually, a lot of these people prefer substitutes, and many of them failed to completely adopt a veg diet

Rephrase / Point of Disagreement:

HA thinks people in general can be vegetarians with no issues, but the critic doesn't think that's the case

AC Breakdown:

(A) - whether the diet would be improved is irrelevant here; the critic is not denying that

(B) - that's great, but we are not talking about the chance of a person succeeding being a vegetarian. We are talking about how easy it is for people in general to become one.

(C) - again, irrelevant to the discussion. We don't care about the # of people trying to be vegetarians

(D) - irrelevant - we are not talking about if people regret or not

(E) - matches our point of disagreement. HA thinks so, but the critic doesn't.

is there a chance that whoever has the longest streak will get a reward?

Stim Breakdown

Prem:

Kick it up: North America

(1) Most species are not rodent

(2) Most individual mammals are rodents

Example:

There are 5 species of mammals:

#1: Non-rodent, 1 member

#2: Non-rodent, 2 member

#3: non-rodent, 100 members

#4: rodent, 60 members

#5: rodent, 60 members

AC Breakdown:

(A) - not supported - we don’t know if non-rodents have chisel-like teeth

(B) -  supported: 

• Average non-rodent members / species: (100+3)/3 = ~34 members per species

• Average rodent members / species: 60 members per species

(C) - the scope here is North America; we don’t know about mammals in other continents

(D) - #3 has more members than rodents

(E) - the scope here is North America; we don’t know about mammals in other continents

Kevin is the GOAT

I use the light-bulb explanations first, because explanation videos can be long. If I still don't understand the light-bulb explanations, I watch the videos.

Stim Breakdown

Prem:

(1) Pedigreed dogs need to conform to certain standards set by organizations

(2) These standards are usually only about physical traits and not genetic traits that allow dogs to perform tasks for which they were developed (e.g., super sensitive nose to sniff out drugs)

(3) These genetic traits are at risk of being lost

Concl:

• Organizations should set standards that require working ability in working dogs

AC Breakdown:

(A) - this is about “should not set standards” - doesn’t fit our conclusion

(B) - the stim is not about enforcement; it’s about new standards need to be set

(C) - this is still about enforcement of standards - not relevant here

(D) - we don’t anything about if these traits will be put to use

(E) - this is the right answer - combining (2) + (3) + (E) leads to our conclusion

Stim Breakdown:

Prem:

Note: need to figure what “That” refers to. That = call the audience attention 

(1) Call audience’s attention → difficult to empathize

• Contrapositive of (1):

  /[difficult to empathize] → /[call audience’s attention]

(2) Effective performance → /[distract audience]

Concl:

Effective performance → /[call audience’s attention]

Gap:

We have “effective performance” on the left in (2), and the contrapositive of (1) has “/[call audience’s attention]” on the right.

Link (2) + contrapositive of (1):

Effective performance → /[distract audience] → /[difficult to empathize] → /[call audience’s attention]

The highlighted part is our gap

(E) is the correct answer: difficult to empathize → distract audience

This is contrapositive of our gap 

@businessgoose Or I was thinking the mussels just contain the waste inside / not transforming them into anything

@businessgoose yes I would agree with your unstated assumption! The government is nudging the residents to decrease electricity use so that everyone can have electricity