I thought Main Point questions directly reference the conclusion. Why is that not the case here? #feedback #help

C feels like a massive assumption. Choosing it requires assuming that if the poison worked, then the pike would not return.

Exactly! I came here to say the same!

Qn 15 is excellently-thought out, wow.

I absolutely agree with you. Totally.

But this still sounds to me like they disagree on if it is the only way to do so. Doesn't 'supplementary' mean 'in addition to,' which encompasses the 'dance' in this case?

are likely, but not necessarily* (for good measure).

Right on. Answer choice D actually does describe a flaw. I also wonder how to establish this 'hierarchy'.

Yeah the question seems weak. The difference was the person's 'understanding of the word' and not the argument's use of it. lol

But if the claim is true, and C is correct, then red cars would be banned.

I thought we have to accept the truth of ALL the premises on the LSAT. It says here that "If...true." Why would we question that? #help

I agree to what you say, even if your comment is not in direct response to the author's main point which -- as may be seen under the annotations 'njtnoleta' which arguably, and by implication, not necessarily, denote the commenter's preferred name on this interface owned, maintained and ostensibly designed by 7Sage, the company offering the service on whose interface we have written these comments -- centred on the frustration brought about by the previous lessons' evasion of many of those concepts we had just covered in earlier lessons in their explanations of the Sufficient Assumption problem sets, coupled with the anachronistic use of biconditionals, a concern he asserted would not be shared unless one were struggling with Lawgic.

What does 'in general' mean in the correct answer choice? A category 'The Arts' or funding something 'generally' ie. as a collective decision?

#help (Added by Admin)

I discredited B because I thought there was no way the LSAT would require that we make the assumption that short attention spans meant children were harder to teach. It sounds exactly like the sort of thing we'd be told NOT to assume.

Exactly. This is what threw me off. I also thought that for conditions to be the same, it was necessary that the committees both exist AND that their existence be required by law.

Seems the LSAT doesn't look into how they come about, but focusses on their existence or lack thereof (in medium-sized and large workplaces), as that's what impacts the rate of accidents.

Just one other thing to learn about the LSAT, lol. I feel like I am over-thinking some aspects of the LSAT.

#help

Still struggling to be persuaded on this one.

That % of fat consumed remained the same but fat consumption increased doesn’t necessarily mean that they were eating more food. Logically speaking. To assert that, we are compelled to make an assumption about the nutritional composition of the individuals' diet, something which the LSAT apparently never does.

All the consumption increase might be 100% vegetables and no fat. That disproves the supposed correct answer that they must have been eating more.

To assume B as the correct answer requires the assumption that ‘eating more’ necessarily means ‘consuming more fat.’

Still struggling to be persuaded on this one.

That % of fat consumed remained the same but fat consumption increased doesn't necessarily mean that they were eating more food. Logically speaking. To assume that is to assume the nutritional composition of the people's diet, which the LSAT apparently never does.

All the consumption increase might be 100% vegetables and no fat. That disproves the supposed correct answer that they must have been eating more.

To assume B as the correct answer requires the assumption that 'eating more' necessarily means 'consuming more fat.'

This is a brilliant explanation. However, it requires that one 'fish' for a possible justification for the 'increased fat intake.'

This is a brilliant explanation. However, it purports to disprove D and not prove B.

Totally agreed. I hear the reasoning behind choosing B, but it seems to hinge on assuming the nutritional composition of these individuals’ diet. For instance, to conclude that consuming more fat directly corresponds to an increase in food intake, we would need to assume that their dietary habits follow a strict proportionality between food intake and fat consumption.

However, it is also possible that these people are consuming less food overall but have slightly increased their fat intake. In that case, option B may not necessarily be the definitive answer.

Why must B necessarily be correct?

I'll say this better.

I hear the reasoning behind choosing B, but it seems to hinge on assuming the nutritional composition of these individuals' diet. For instance, to conclude that consuming more fat directly corresponds to an increase in food intake, we would need to assume that their dietary habits follow a strict proportionality between food intake and fat consumption.

However, it is also possible that these people are consuming less food overall but have slightly increased their fat intake. In that case, option B may not necessarily be the definitive answer.

Why must B necessarily be correct?

#help

This was a weird one. I see the reasoning, but wouldn't choosing B as the correct answer require that we assume the nutritional composition of these people's food (ie. for them to have consumed more fat means the increasing food intake was directly proportional to the increase in fat consumption?)

They could be eating less food, but slightly more fat.

Why must B necessarily be correct?

Yeah, agreed. But I still wonder how the water dripped into the cave from above since the passage says the cave is only accessible through an underwater tunnel.

How did the dripping occur?

#help

I chose D because I imagined there was a hole (above the stalagmite) at one point through which the water dripped.

With B, how could the water have dropped from above (at any time)? It is said the only source is through an underwater tunnel.

#help On this, how do we know that H's latest novel does have at least one property of good literature if we have not been told that good literature can consist in any one of 'maturity, complexity or grace?' There seems to be a leap in logic to me.