I think part of what makes A wrong is that it requires a lot of assumptions

A) it says that "tenants who don't have to pay for their own electrictity generally must compensate by paying higher rent." - this tries to get you to think okay, if they start having to pay for their own electricity, it would remain the same because they already currently pay for rent - but that is a huge assumption to make - we have NO idea how they would react actually - maybe they'll conserve more now that their electricity is being based on how much they actually pay. We just don't know. It could either strengthen or weaken the argument depending on how you look at it - so it's not the right answer.

sooooo here, do we just assume that darker roasts (longer time to roast) vs. lighter roasts (shorter time to roast)?

I think that's actually the case in real life, but can we make that assumption? Does this not require outside knowledge?

Also, when I did this question, I had no idea that darker roasts were a result of length of time it took to roast than lighter roasts.... (i know I'm dumb, but don't drink much coffee)

#help

This was a really hard question for me - I definitely felt like B was off, but I read E too quickly and crossed it out prematurely.

They key takeaway is that even in RRE questions, where there is sometimes room for assumptions, it's important to recognize when a BIG assumption is being made. In this case, B requires some big assumptions. The first assumption is that some other factor is having a larger effect than on high salt intake. The second is that group of people whose blood pressure stayed relatively similar throughout had that second factor in their diet

Another thing to notice is, sometimes, you will have to make assumptions for RRE. However, it really comes down to recognizing that another answer choice better explains the discrepancy than another.

argh... this question REALLY annoys me because it really comes down to a certain degree of detail orientation that I'm not sure I'd actually have during the real test -- but this is nonetheless a good learning opportunity

The key takeaway here is that I have to take a closer look at the answer choices to see if there are any key words that make or break the answer choice. In other words, slow down adn actually read what the answer choice is saying. Also, for curve breaker strengthen questions, it might be helpful to actually see if the answer choices incorporates all the important elements in the AC (in this case, age of the meteorites, linearity of the craters, etc.)

Here goes my analysis of the question:

Conclusion: the eight craters that run in a long straight line across a geographical region were probably caused by volcanic events rather than meteorites.

Why? Because because of the linearity of the craters, it is very unlikely that some of them were caused by volcanoes and others were caused by meteorites. Also these craters are all different ages

Assumption: here, we make the assumption that it is more likely that volcanic activity is the cause of the linear craters rather than the meteorites or any other cause. So, since this is a strengthen question, and it follows the phenomenon-hypothesis framework, we want to find an answer choice that either increases the likelihood that it is volcanoes and not meteorites OR decrease the chances that it is meteorites that caused these craters.

A) This is irrelevant - I think they're trying to get you to think that in another shorter line of craters, it was caused by volcanic activity. However, we have to notice here that it is craters of the same age. This is the opposite of what's told in the stimulus - the craters that the stim is talking about are all different ages. It is essentially an irrelevant comparison.

B) This is saying that no known natural causes would likely lead to eight meteorite craters of different ages forming a straight line. This is saying that no natural event (including a meteor shower) would lead to formation of the craters. This strengthens the argument because it makes it even more unlikely that the craters are a result of meteors

C) This almost weakens the argument. If both of them have no evidence, that could mean that the two are equally likely

D) This again basically seems to weaken the argument as well

E) I chose this answer during the PT, but what I missed is that they're saying "no known single meteor shower has created exactly eight impact craters that form a straight line." however, if you take a closer look, why does it matter if no SINGLE meteor shower has been known to create a straight line? They said the craters are different ages, so it might be more reasonable to assume that there are meteor showers that occur at different times. This brings us no where closer to deciding that the volcanoes are what caused the craters.

READ CAREFULLY, LOOK FOR KEY WORDS, TRY TO SEEE IF THE ACS INCORPORATE ALL THE ELEMENTS IN THE STIM.

https://classic.7sage.com/discussion/#/discussion/18450/7sage-podcast-episode-8-the-week-before-the-lsat-how-to-manage-nerves

for your reference :smile:

coming back to this question two months later (and a day before the lsat as light review), this question makes total sense.

This is how the argument is formatted.

Premise: Many employers treat their employees fairly.

Conclusion: Thus, using others as a means to one's own end is not always morally reprehensible.

Initial thoughts: this is a necessary assumption question so this is something we need to assume in order for the conclusion to be true. Here, I see a gap between employers and those who use others as a means to their own end. If that is not assumed, that the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

A) do we need to assume that employers act in a morally represensible way ONLY in they treat their employees poorly? Do we have to assume there's only one situation in which this can happen? no!

B) This is the opposite of what the conclusion is saying. It contradicts the conclusion. Therefore, it can't be a necessary assumption.

C) Yes, this connects the premise to the conclusion. employers use others to their own means will help us get to the conclusion that those who use others to their own means do not always act in a morally reprehensible way. If this was not the case (aka, employers do not use others for their own means), then it destroys the argument.

D) do we need to assume it's never harmful? the conclusion doesn't even go as far as saying it's NEVER harmful.

E) do we have to assume that only when treat a person to their own means can you harm someone? No! This is not a necessary assumption we need to make to make the concl. follow.

I can see why B is incorrect now. Ultimately, B is saying that among those who currently do not participate in the census, few, if any, will actually participate voluntarily. Do we really need to assume that few,if any will actually participate? No! It's actually okay if more than a few participate because regardless, that sample size for the "voluntary census" is going to be lower anyways. The negation of B ultimately strengthens the argument because it's saying "many people who choose to participate in" which would make the new sample size even less representative than that of the results of the original mandatory census

Conclusion: from a sociological perspective, affection plays the same role in chimp communities as human communities.

Why? because humans are more willing to face risks to protect those whom they feel affection towards.

+ a chimp who displays affection to others is more likely to be protected from other chimps

Initial thoughts; this is an argument that is saying affection plays the same role for chimp and human communities (in other words, affection prompts people to protect others i guess... it's not super clear, btut that's my guess.) Already, I see a gap- the example of the chimps is about chimps who protect others who show affection towards them; while the part about the humans talks about humans protection they show affectionate towards. In order to show that the human communities and chimp communities treat affection the same, we HAVE to assume that chimps who receive affection probably have affection for those chimps that give them teh affection.

A) Do we have to make an assumption about all emotions? maybe they just express their sadness behaviorally or affection behaviorally but not happiness. idk just seems too strong

B) yes this is exactly what we're looking for. THis is an absolutley necessary assumption because if they weren't able to return affection, it would weaken the idea that human communities use affection the same way

C) Nah we dont need to assume anything about the reasons human protect each other except for affection.

D) Nah don't need to assume this either. It's out of the scope of the argument

E) do we need to assume that tehy're USUALLY displayed through altruistic behavior? Not really. we just need to assume that they sometimes do...

are there any other questions like this where it requires you to make a "reasonable assumption" (i.e. if it can't recognize homophones--> not accurate?)

I feel like i've seen it before but im not sure where

#help

C is a trap answer choice because it is trying to get you to think "oh, thompson would not be a good leader for his opinions on something else other than taxes" ;

However, two things - this does not undermine the ARGUMENT which is using the idea that thompson opposes higher taxes in the way that other candidates don't. Second, even if we say that thompson has questionable ideas, can we assume that the other candidates don't?

this question kind of pisses me off........

I actually think C really requires a LOT of assumptions - assumptions that we are usually punished for on the LSAT :(

alllll righty this was a tough question.

Originally didn't get the answer correct, but revisited the question a few months later and got ti right - which leads to me to either believe that 1) i wasn't actually reading the stim when i took this test 2) my strengthening understanding has gotten stronger, 3) luck hahah

Anyways, regardless, here is my analysis

Conclusion: Nutritious breakfasts make the workers more productive

Why? because in a study conducted, for a month, workers at Plant A received free nutritious breakfasts while workers on Plant B did not

Initial thoughts: This is one of those correlation-causation type of frameworks. Naturally, something like this requires a lot of assumptions. Several assumptions came to mind: 1) that the people in Plant A actually ate their nutritious breakfast, 2) that it wasn't something else that was causing the difference in Plant A and Plant B in terms of productivity (i.e. they hired stronger workers in Plant A), etc

A) This is extremely subtle - this is pointing out the assumption we probably already made in our heads without really having support for it - that people in Plant B were not eating nutritious breakfasts OUTSIDE of work. This is ultimately a good strengtheners because it makes slightly more likely that it is nutritious breakfast and not something else.

B) Ok, let's say they started at the same time - I think it's trying to get you to think - okay Plant A people got more done in spite of working the same # of hours as Plant B. Therefore Plant A people are more productive- The problem with this answer choice is that this is one of those trap strengtheners. This may strengthen the fact that Plant A people are more productive - but the conclusion is saying that the nutritious breakfast are the reason. Saying Plant A is more productive than Plant B does not make it any less likely it isn't some alternative cause that is making Plant A people more productive.

C) Ok, all this tells us is that now Plant A workers are definitely more productive than Plant B. Again, this is what I call a fake strengthener. It strengthens the fact that Plant A people did become more productive - however, it doesn't make it any less likely that it is an alternative reason is causing it.

D) uhhhhh what? What does vacation days have to do with anything? If anything, this possibyl weakens the argument because it's saying that the reason Plant A is more productive than Plant B is because people are less lazy?? idk just all around a wrong answer.

E) again, this strengthens the idea that Plant A became more productive; however, it once again, does not strengthen the REASON the author is saying plant A became more prodcutive (which is nutritious breakfasts). It is just as likely that an alternative cause is the reason for the increase in productivity.

C vs. E

I was between C and E - thought it might've been C until i saw E

Conclusion: the ringtail opossums are endangered not because of scarcity of food but because of the fact that they have not developed defenses against

Why? 75% of those ringtails released back into the wild were eaten my boxes

Initial thoughts: what if these ringtails (that were raised in captivity arent representative of the general ringtail population?)

C) This, at first was tempting. This is trying to get you to think that opossums that were raised in captivity eat same things as those that were not. It is trying to establish that in terms of diets, the captured ringtails have representative diets of those in the wild. However, if you take a closer look at this answer choice, what are the implication of this answer choice? Does this mean that the diet that these ringtails eat are scarce right now? It never actually establishes that

E) This basically exactly matches my pre-phrase - this answer strengthens the argument because it makes it more likely that the it's because of predators like the fox that are making these opossums endangered.

remember that strengtheners make one explanation more likely than another. If an AC makes it less likely that it is an alternative explanation, it can also strengthen the argument. (this did not happen in this q, but just something good to remember)

I didn't really read answer choice D the way J.Y. did (the reasonable reading of it). I just read it as the atmosphere derives most of the heat when sunlight goes through it.

Even with this answer choice, it doesn't help us strengthen the argument that ultimately, having more ice cover the earth will make the earth cooler because ice reflect the sunlight back. Saying that the earth derives most of its heat from the sunlight really doesn't do anything for that argument. Also, let's say we do have an absolute amount of sunlight that goes heats up the atmosphere - this is irrelevant to the COMPARATIVE conclusion the argument is trying to make.

I thought the answer choice would've been C, but now that I think about it, C requires a lot of assumptions. For example, it assumes that those who are tardy actually rush to school - maybe that's not the case ..

yeah my PT 84 dropped too :| which makes me severely nervous about the real test haha; but just remember, we just need to learn from our mistakes! we can totally do it this saturday!

Key takeaway: try NOT to misread - it's so incredibly hard to msiread. If you're between two answers, it might be a good idea to re-read an answer choice just to make sure you didn't miss anything.

I'm gonna give this question a try.

This is a PSA question - so essentially, we want to choose an answer choice that helps us connect our premise to our conclusion (it doesn't have to make the conclusion TRUE, but it has to help us get there)

Ok, so here goes.

Conclusion: Most people agree that Marva's Diner's food is exceptional, while the more popular Traintrack Inn's food is ordinary. However, this discrepancy should not come at a surprise.

Why? Because Traintrack's convenient enough to bring in a steady flow of customers.

So, since this is a PSA question, we have to somehow connect that this idea that Traintrack's convenient location makes it no surprise that it is more popular? I really don't know...

I was really down to B and D on this answer choice. I ultimately chose the wrong answer

B) If you think about B, it's simply saying, that any restaurant can become more popular by moving to a more convenient location. All this tells us is that if Marva's Diner or Traintrack Inn moved to a more convenient location, they'd be more popular. However, this really doesn't help us conclude that discrepancy should be no surprise. It really doesn't get us to conclude that location is basically more important than the food.

D) The way D is worded really turned me away from it. This is saying that a business only improves its food only if it is necessary to attract customers. Since Traintrack is in a good location, it will not need to improve its food. That's probably why it hasnt. Hence, this explains the discrepancy as to why Traintrack has okay food, yet is more popular while Marva has excellent food but still isn't as popular...

this question.......

This was a really hard question but very indicative of the relative language that these test writers are now using to throw us off.

Henry is saying: to reduce urban pollution, we should replace gas cars with battery-powered cars because battery cars cause less pollution than gas cars.

Umit: She disagrees and introduces another facet - she says that battery cars will need to be recharged and they are often a source of pollution. The power plants that would be widely used would cause pollution.

How do we weaken Umit's argument?

Initial thoughts: In a regular weaken, I would automatically think to myself... well, will the amount of pollution from power plants really exceed the amount of pollution that produced by using gasoline cars? I'm not really sure, but I'll let the answer choices guide me.

A) This could very well weaken the argument because this shows that pollution would be concentrated in areas outside of the city. Thus, there would be less urban pollution.

B) I looked at B after A and started having second thoughts about A. This is saying that the increased air pollution resulting from greater demand would be offset by the lessening use of gas vehicles. This is VERY tricky and this is an example of how the LSAT has started using relative language to trick us. If we presume B to be true, then that is saying pollution levels would remain about the same if we switched over to electric cars. While pollution from using power plants will go up, pollution from gasoline cars will go down. (assuming that offset means completely offset). If pollution levels remain the same, then are we really weakening Umit's argument that the power plant's widespread use would cause pollution? No!

C) My initial reaction was uh okay. that's great, but what does that tell us about the level of pollution? not much. We can't weaken the argument if we don't talk about the central point of issue which is pollution levels.

D) Where did they talk about hybrid vehicles? This is out of scope.

E) We would have to make a lot of assumptions to make this one work. Just because there is more capacity doesn't mean there will be less pollution as a result.

This is a flaw question

Remember that "takes for granted" means that there is an assumption the author is making that could make the argument potentially flawed.

Conclusion: speed limit reduction can reduce traffic fatalities.

Why? Because a year ago, the government reduced the speed limit and there have been significantly fewer fatalities than there were the previous year.

Initial thoughts: Here, it seems like the author is attributing the lower fatality # to the reduction in speed limit. Initially, I thought this was flawed because it failed to take into consideration alternative causes for the reduction of speed limit. Not sure, but will let the answers guide me and keep an open mind.

A) We have no idea of the author really takes for granted that traffic has increased over the past year. There is no indication of this at all in the stimulus. Also, if this WERE true, is the argument really flawed because the author takes for granted that traffic has increased over the past year? Nah.

B) This was tricky - I was stuck on this for a while. This says that the author takes for granted that a majority of the people followed the law. Based off of my own outside knowledge, I DO know that a majority of people follow the law. However, if the author assumes this, is this really why the argument is flawed? I think the AC is trying to get you to think that in reality, most people did not listen to this new speed limit law, so it really didn't lower the fatality rate. However, we simply don't know if the author assumes this. Maybe the author assumed that just a few people listened to the law and that made the fatality rate better.

C) This was also super tricky. I really thought it was this one for some reason, but once I saw E, I was pretty sure this was not the right answer. Is the argument really flawed because the author takes for granted that there is a relation between speed limit and accident rates? That's not what is making this argument flawed. The argument is flawed because the author fails to consider other possibilities that may be causing the fatality rate. Also, another clue for me was seeing that the author takes for granted that there is a relationship with speed limit and ACCIDENT rates. Does the author really do this? He might think that there is a relationship between speed limit and fatality rates, but we don't know if he sees a relationship between speed limits and accident rates.

D) uhhhhh this just seemed very wrong. the author does not presume (or at least we don't know) that the new speed limit was more strictly informed

E) The author does take this for granted because he assumes that the lower fatality rate was a result of the speed limit. However, that means that he took for granted that fatality rates weren't abnormally high - because if the speed limits WERE abnormally high, then it would mean that the fatality rate is simply possibly returning to normal and as a result, was not necessarily a product of the stricter speed limit.

wow tough question; key takeaway: always ask yourself, is the author really presuming this???

Big picture reminder:

When doing a flaw/descriptive weakening question, you have to keep in mind the argument - you have to ask yourself why does the premise not support the conclusion.

For me, B was originally tempting because the author certainly doesn't mention the difference between the severity of the cases. However, this is not what the author was using to argue the conclusion that these sunscreen lotions are ineffective.

This happens quite a bit on the LSAT - the LSAT writers will give you an AC where it is "factually true" but it's not the actual flaw of the argument because it's talking about an aspect the author really doesn't touch on nor does the author use to support its argument.

Hi, I just wanted to drop in and say that you're not alone at all. I wanted to let you know that what you're experiencing is COMPLETELY normal. It's easy to feel a wide array of emotions before the test from anxiety to stress to even loneliness.

I literally went through what you went through today. I even bombed a PT because I was so exhausted, anxious etc. I feel constantly exhausted and I have no one to talk to about this - my friends for sure don't understand.

My point is, ultimately, what you're feeling is normal. Just keep on plowing through and follow the advice that people have written for you above. It's excellent advice. If you feel yourself freaking out, take a step away from your books and just go take a walk. At this point, you KNOW the material - the only thing keeping you away from the score you need is your mindset.

If you ever need to talk to someone when you're feeling stressed, you can always message me. I'd be happy to listen to your rants and we can talk about the anxieties that you/I feel about this test! :)

Good luck! I know you can do it!

The key takeaway is that in really hard questions in general, and you're choosing between two answers that both seem like they're incorrect, one way to eliminate an answer choice is to check to see if you're making a ton of assumptions.

I did not see E the same way JY did - I interpreted E as the babblers barked because they saw other animals in danger and wanted to help them out. Either interpretation requires WAY too many assumptions - The first assumption being that them barking would scare off/distract predators. You also have to make the assumption that making the barking sound would protect these babblers more - they may or may not!

Either way, E is too ambiguous and requires too much guesswork compared to B which is way more spelled out and easy to explain

This is a PSA question - meaning you want to find a principle that makes the argument (the bridge) as strong as possible.

Conclusion: Romantics are wrong when they said that people are made evil by their institutions

Why? Because institutions are merely collections of people

Assumption: that institutions cannot make people evil if it is just a representative of the people (the institution cannot impart properties onto it's members)

A) This is not talking about the connection about institutions and people - it's just saying that people can do more evil together than apart - this is completely irrelevant.

B) This does not help us answer - are institutions capable of making people evil?

C) What does people and what they should do have anything to do with the argument

D) Sure - but does not help us answer that can institutions make people evil? This fails to make a link between individuals and institutions

E) Yes! This helps the premise reach the conclusion because this tells us that institutions cannot impart anything on people - as a result, these romantics are wrong