@EmmaMoulton Primary purpose questions will typically start with a verb, and the correct Answer choice will match the authors presence and tone.

The author here is not present since we just get a description of recent research and studies supporting a conclusion. The tone would also be neutral.

For example, C is wrong both because it is too narrow in its focus on Bohringer's experimental work, AND because it uses the verb "assess", which would require the author evaluating or judging the results of the experiment.

Similarly, a verb like "critique" or "advocate" would be an automatic disqualifier for a primary purpose question because that would not match the tone of the passage or the author's attitude.

@RunningCake But isn't there a difference between "Western notions of standard language writing" and incorporating "words from the majority culture"? Just because some community members favor the former does not mean they favor the latter.

@Chex Given how "adequate" legal systems would "have to be equipped with a kind of comprehensive knowledge system", and such a knowledge system is UNLIKELY to be developed in the foreseeable future, it seems fair to say that "breakthroughs" are required if legal systems are to be adequate.

Given the focus of the passage on computers, the mention of "designers" tweaking/fixing these legal systems, I think the idea of requiring breakthroughs by computer specialists is a reasonable assumption.

Similarly, if I said that for quantum computing to study black holes, we would need to equip to quantum computers with a kind of knowledge far beyond their capabilities at present or in the foreseeable future, then it would be fair to say that "Developing adequate models of black holes using quantum computing would require research breakthroughs by quantum scientist"

Author's objection is most applicable to which of the following explanations == what would the author ALSO object to, based off their objection to the second hypothesis.

@philiplenczycki504 I think the clearer match in AC D is the gap between "well seasoned meat stock" to "meat stock". Those are two very different things. A well seasoned meat stock is a subset and is a matter of QUALITY, while a meat stock is the broader set. A well seasoned meat stock is a type of meat stock, but there are also poorly-seasoned meat stocks, and un-seasoned meat stocks.

This matches the stimulus, where we jump from the "supply of good things to eat and drink" to "prepared more than enough to eat and drink". The former is also a matter of quality, and is a subset of the latter.

So the flaw here trying to trigger a rule about a specific subset, but only providing the broader set.

For AC B, Passage A does not seem to bring up the ceremonial nature of artistic performance, so how could it be inconsistent with Kant's views?

@ChristopherTobin I would disagree that Passage A defines beauty at all. Passage A seems to be focusing on simply judging excellence in athletic events or artistic events.

Passage A then contrasts the clear/consistent standards of athletic events with the shifting/confusing standards of the arts.

Passage B, by describing Kant's conception of beauty, seems to imply a standard of judging beauty that is based on appearing natural/purposeful.

So Author A would AGREE with the statement that Kant's standard (that beauty arises because things look purposeful) does not match the standards which audiences use (that of novelty and shock value)

@FultonHoover You can sort questions by Hardest to find them

Wait if the conclusion is false, then that means being at home IS REQUIRED for being in ones own house. (House --> Home)

That is compatible with P1. If the sufficient is absent (/House), its entirely possible that we can still be at home.

So if the conclusion is true, then P1 must be true. If the conclusion is false, then P1 can still be true.

I interpreted C to be pointing out a factor the argument ignores.

The argument is making a sweeping claim about X being more dangerous than Y, but only points out one difference between X & Y (smoke being cooler, which leads to more creosote deposited).

C weakens by pointing out another difference between X & Y, risk of severe accidents. Now we have two factors to consider, each pushing in opposite directions. One factor makes X more dangerous than Y, and another factor doing the opposite. This creates doubt, and opens up the possibility that X is not more dangerous than Y.

When arguments concludes with an overall comparison claim, a cookie cutter assumption is that there is not some outweighing factor the argument ignores which could make that claim less likely.

Here the LSAT expects you to know local extinction means "localized", so extinct from the South Island even though the species continues to exist on the North Island.

The mention of Anthony Johnson seems to be stated pretty clearly as a fact, and I would consider it qualitative data.

Instead, B is wrong because the example is not overlooked at all. Breen and Innes are mentioned here as "the authors." The mention of Anthony Johnson is meant to illustrate the point that Breen and Innes underemphasize evidence that customary law was closing in on free African Americans.

I think the "cultivated for only a short time" is referring to the time between when people first started cultivating fruit and when the remains of the apple were dated to.

The timeline is: People first started cultivating fruit 5,000 years ago, and the archaeologist in the present finds the remains of apples that are dated to "this period" (sometime around when people first cultivated fruit 5,000 years ago).

If these apples were cultivated and were dated to around 5,000 years ago, then they would have only been cultivated for a short period of time.

Discursive practices = how people use language in real life

The supernova of '87

@afk I understand your intent in answering the question about D, and I agree that the written explanation is way too short. However, I disagree with your interpretation of D. The goal of a weakening AC is to make the conclusion even slightly less likely, as opposed to falsifying it.

Per the 7sage lesson on "How to Weaken Arguments":

https://7sage.com/lessons/logical-reasoning/weaken-strengthen-evaluate-questions-causal-logic/how-to-weaken-arguments

It most certainly does not want you to contradict or attack a premise nor does it ask you to simply contradict or deny the conclusion. Instead, you are asked to deprive the support that the premises give to the conclusion

My reason for replying to this chain is that much harder weakening questions have ACs that barely make the conclusion less likely, and yet are correct because they fulfill the role of being the "most weakening" AC. If I approached those questions looking to find the AC that contradicts the conclusion completely, I would miss the correct answer.

Additionally, when I describe D as "evidence," I am using the ordinary definition of the word(https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/evidence).

I am taking D as a fact (which the question stem tells us to do), and it gives reason to believe that the conclusion is less likely.

@afk My point is that AC D does a lot more than simply go against what the author is concluding, and it weakens the argument in a very typical LSAT manner.

@afk I interpreted AC D to be a cookie-cutter weakening AC, which provides evidence that what the argument predicts (Identical twins will have similar inclination) is typically NOT the case. AC D attacks the relationship between:

"similar Genes -cause->similar inclinations"

It provides the fact that those with similar genes DO NOT share the same inclinations.

(In other words, Same cause and no effect)

translating AC B:

some pairs with no common ancestors are more genetically similar than some pairs with common ancestors

so some pairs with common ancestors are LESS genetically similar than some pairs with no common ancestors

so the fact that there is a genetic difference (less genetically similarity) between guinea pigs and mice, could still allow for the pair to have common ancestors.

AC C was so tempting for me, but there is no support for "adversely affected". We are only told that the patterns are challenged and reshaped. But they could be reshaped for the better. A CHANGE in something could be positive OR negative, we simply don't know.

The point of bringing up the "three part division" is to provide an example of scholarship that identifies specific changes. The scholars proposing this "three part division" would likely also subscribe to other aspects of modern scholarship, including the view of a more complicated picture of women's lives (AKA the broad variety of social and economic factors)

@AndrewPerry I think the difference for PT112.S1.Q18 is that the conclusion is a causal conclusion that "exercise lowers blockage of arteries". It reaches that conclusion by stating that "lowering cholesterol lowers blockage of arteries", and that "if data is correct, exercise lowers cholesterol".

• Another way of diagramming this would be

  • Premise: B -causes-> C

  • Premise: If data is correct --> (A -causes-> B)

  • Conclusion: A -causes-> C

• In order to reach the conclusion, which is just the causal chain of A causes B causes C simplified, we have to trigger the sufficient condition of the second premise, which is what AC D accomplishes.

• AC D is a Sufficient Assumption that makes the conclusion 100% valid.

This question on the other hand is a necessary assumption, so it must be necessary if the conclusion is true. The conclusion for this question is also a conditional conclusion, meaning it does not ACTUALLY have to be the case that public opinion is what Monica says it is.

I interpreted this sentence to further support B:

Applying the notion of retained rights to the domain of intellectual property, theorists argue that copyrighting a work secures official recognition of one's intention to retain certain rights to that work.

"Theorists" here are the proponents of the tangible-object theory, and because they are applying retained rights to intellectual property, that implies some agreement with other applications of retained rights.

@arianacardwell But there's no mention of procedures common to most legal systems.

Can't believe I misread the year in the question as 1991.

For some reason the second sentence of the stimulus seemed to me like it was talking about a subset of societies, ones that were "properly functioning". That made me way too cautious when choosing C.

For MSS, is that reading incorrect?