Got this right but was like 2 minutes over time because of how horribly worded the answer choice was

5/5 on actual and br!! been a while since i've been confident in my answers.

@JRS samee

For (E), can we still identify "undermining" as the conclusion descriptor or at least partly? or would the piecemeal analysis be not much of help anyways? #help

@defcats3 I negated it like: if the substances of medicinal value in tropical rf plants not yet studied are the SAME as those substances already discovered, what would happen? Even if we were preserve rainforests and study all of the new plants, the substances found in them will only be turned into medicines that have already been developed. The argument makes no sense.

I also had to remind myself that the medicines were being developed, not made.

@odserlin282

This was my process:

Conclusion: the stars are younger than previously thought

Premise: the stars are further from us and thus brighter than previously thought.

How do I connect the premise to the conclusion? It must be that distance or brightness(two have a correlation as established in the stimulus) can help us calculate the star's age.

(C) does exactly that. I would also say not only is it necessary because there's a gap in the argument, it also pretty strongly supports the argument. And again, if we negate (C) and say that distance/brightness doesn't prove a star's age, then the argument is just baseless.

@Thomas_Vega This applies to all the NA questions we've come across so far, but negation. If we negate (D), then the whole argument dismantles.

I think I confused necessary vs sufficient...yet again. I thought the argument's weakest point was the missing connection between the premise and the conclusion and overlooked the analogy.

If Plesiosauromorph fins, like bird wings, were specialized for long-distance flight, that still doesn't strengthen the argument that Plesiosauromorphs were long-distance hunters..

But the argument first requires that the author's analogy make sense and consequently that their fins are specialized for long distance flight for the author to even argue that they hunted prey over long distance. That is what is necessary.

It is not sufficient, but necessary.

If I write it out, it becomes much clearer but it's like my brain hits a reset button and struggle when I see a new problem. lol

@IsabellaP

This is how I understood this question:

The stimulus/conclusion says: rocks for Japanese gardens should vary widely in appearance because rocks in nature also vary widely in appearance.

Paraphrased, it's the same as: a component of Japanese gardens should be similar to, or imitate, nature.

Another premise is that the design Japanese gardens should display harmony with nature.

So what's the missing assumption here? That imitating nature helps to display harmony with nature.

I'm by no means the best at SA but what's helped me is realizing that (E) is "bridging the wrong gap" in the stimulus. Yes, it bridges some gaps in the premises but only the premises (but kinda only the gap from our own assumptions). You have to make sure you know what gap you're bridging. (A) bridges the gap between the premises and the conclusion, which makes it the correct answer.

I chose (D) because the staff belonging to a politically prominent person undermined the hypothesis that it was a "communal" object, and rather proved that the staff was a private/exclusive item.

@gsigmon229816 I think that would still most weaken the argument over other ACs

@maryamvardehan I noticed it too but I focused more on the "up to 40 tons." This could mean anything, the average stone could have weighed significantly less, possibly around 9 tons.

Ok the premise does state that Azedcorp's ownership is "the only obstacle". eye roll 

When I did the BR though, I reminded myself that the ACs had to be TRUE. If it's true that Azedcorp "will probably soon FORCE the sale of its newspaper holdings," I guess the (E) is correct...

Honestly though, if it wasn't for the "suggest for BR" sign, I would have still chosen (D). With (E), I thought it was a bit unclear because of the word "probably," and "newspaper holdings," (the lack of "all" holdings? idk) and the idea that they might sell to another person/company not Morris.

I didn't choose E because I thought it undermined the premise in the stimulus, just as I thought (B) was undermining Azedcorp's steadfast refusal to sell. :/

(D) felt like the right choice because I assumed Morris could buy more shares off others other than Azedcorp but I guess that was too much of a stretch

These take up so much time :(

Not hitting my target time with these because every question feels like I should be doing POE

I was conflicted between A and B because with B, my question was: what if there are only two small factories and two small businesses that, say, use up the amount of electricity that ten homes would and there are ten thousand homes in the region?

But the second I looked back at answer choice B I realized I was heavily overthinking it lol, it literally tells you that businesses use air conditioning the most.

This was my mistake as well, and I think we just have to stick to Lawgic and LSAT's own language rather than our own understanding of the world...lol.

This is my understanding after reviewing my error:

More consumers living downtown is SUFFICIENT to increase the profits of downtown businesses. Meaning if more consumers lived in downtown, the profits WILL DEFINITELY increase.

So in AC (B), we know that the cost of living in the downtown area decreasing is, again, SUFFICIENT to make more consumers live in the area. We also know that more consumers living in the area will increase the profits of businesses. So AC (B) must be true.

On the other hand, a decrease in downtown traffic congestion is NECESSARY to increase the profits of downtown businesses. This is equivalent to meaning that if we saw an increase in the profits of downtown businesses, we know for sure that the downtown traffic congestion decreased. I think the word 'NECESSARY' is tripping me out. Contrary to my typical understanding of the English language...the necessary condition has nothing to do with the cause of the phenomenon. We have to put it on the right side of the arrow because a phenomenon happening indicates to the conditions that are necessary for it to happen, but not the other way around. Whether the NECESSARY condition took place or not, it does not have an effect on the phenomenon.

Someone used a hot dog metaphor in another comment, so if I borrowed that, it would look something like:

(SUFFICIENT #1) If the kids are hungry, I will cook hot dogs.

(SUFFICIENT #2) The kids are always hungry after school.

(NECESSARY) The hot dogs will not be cooked if the stove is turned off.

In this example, it must be true that if the kids have school=they are hungry=I will cook hot dogs.

In the real world, we would pose the question "what if the stove is just..turned off?" But no, this is LSAT logic, and we just know that if the kids have school, they are hungry, and I will cook hot dogs, and cooking hot dogs just means the stove is on.

I was mostly thinking out loud for myself, but I hope this helps.

@bananerr I agree that even if we change the "Most" to "All" it still wouldn't be a valid argument.

My attempt would be:

All produce from California is almonds.

Most produce from California is exported to Brazil.

Some produce exported to Brazil are almonds.

sounds awkward but I'm hoping this is a valid argument!

Tiger: At the library, Stephanie does not spend every minute studying. After all, she can be seen scrolling on her phone at times.

Disney: My dog is napping on the floor instead of his bed. He only naps on the floor after a long walk or a big meal. His food bowl has not been touched at all today. Therefore, he was on a long walk earlier.

Trash bin: Jason has been updating his phone every other year to the newest iPhone of that year. He did not buy a new phone last year. This year's iPhone release date is marked on his calendar. He has been spending less money. My hypothesis is that he has been saving money to buy the new iPhone this year.