Compromise can mean "to cause the impairment of ..."

The reason that I think AC A does not have an effect on the discrepancy:

The first sentence tells us that "conscientiousness is high on most firms' list." The fact that more people are fired due to shirking work responsibility and out there looking for jobs DOES NOT make this group of people a better choice for employers. Who employers like more and prone to hire are still those conscientious workers.

i have to point out that the inference of A -(some)- C from A -> B - (some) - C is invalid. We can only conclude this from A -(some)- B -> C.

being higher leads to being larger here, because the dam under discussion is "ARCH dam."

I don't think so. It seems like in LSAT hearsay is fine and we generally trust people’s oral evidence given in stimulus.

#18: logic for a definition should be bi-conditional, am i right?

#help

I chose D because I mistook "someone" as an indicator of intersection logic like "some."

My takeaway:

Intersection logic (like "some") refers to the overlap or shared characteristics between two groups (e.g., some A are B), while this statement sets up a strict dependency: only those who satisfy condition A can perform B, creating a necessary link rather than an overlap or subset intersection.

The question stem expressly mentions the "scope of the provisions," which means the application of the provisions. As a result, the protection is designed for UCH, and the provisions can only be applied to those who are satisfied as UCHs.

Maybe the definition and provided protection of the "cultural heritage" in passage B can represent the non-monetary value.

The commercial exploitation for sale and trade can imply the mere monetary value of those heritages.

Just checked the Manhattan discussion forum again; you are right!

Hi there, I copied and pasted the explanation from another forum:

The issue is that you've interpreted "latter" and "former" incorrectly. The "latter" stance is extreme relativism whereas the "former" stance is the absolutist one. So while narrative literature serves as a corrective to extreme relativism it need not lead to the abandonment of moral principles entirely.

So your example would be correct if it said that narrative literature "need not lead to" the abandonment of moral principles. Your understanding of "need not lead to" is absolutely correct - it's not the same as tends to avoid.

P - Humans choose how they behave. (they have voluntary action)

SC - Human action has a psychological explanation.

MC- So pheromones are merely a vestige of our evolutionary past.

Two gaps:

1. Premise ---> Intermediate Conclusion

2. Intermediate Conclusion ---> Main Conclusion

AC B resolves the first gap: Negating AC B - If voluntary actions could have chemical explanations, then the argument couldn't say that psychological factors were taking over the role. Potentially, the behavior could then be explained chemically.

If correctly addressed, then arrive within 2 days: CA -> 2 or less

Most mails arrive 3 or more days: Mails -most-> /2 or less -> /CA = Mails -most-> /CA

My takeaway: something being a necessary condition does NOT mean it is the only one necessary condition.

Simplified Stimulus:

- 1st doctrine holds X->Y: Y is necessary for X

- 2nd doctrine holds X->Z: Z is necessary for X

- Main Premise: there is X both containing Y & Z

- Conclusion: Both two doctrines are wrong.

From the main premise, we can get the subtle assumption the author made is that "1st/2nd doctrine means Y/Z is the only necessary for X, no other possible necessary conditions existed." Therefore, when the author found out that some X does have more than one necessary condition, which is the example of the X containing both Y & Z, he concluded both doctrines are wrong.

I didn't like AC A at first because, as Kevin said, it only offers a part of the NA for this argument, i.e., NA for the first doctrine. But we cannot deny that it is still an NA, and the argument does need it to hold. So just remember, a correct AC for NA question does not have to include all NA required for the argument.

I feel the same. Here are my takeaways. Just in case I come across any implicit AC regarding sufficiency and necessity the next time.

1. Negating Sufficient flaw:

P (A->B); C (/A->/B)

From the premise, A is sufficient for B, but we don't know whether A is the only sufficient option for B. Maybe C->B; or D->B.

So when the conclusion negates the sufficient, we can expect the AC to be something like "there could be other sufficient options to get B."

2. Affirming Necessity flaw:

P (A->B); C (B->A)

Classic way to describe the flaw is that "the argument mistakes what is necessary for something sufficient."

Another possible AC expression could be "the argument ignores the fact that some B are not A." Try to think that we are criticizing the conclusion and say, "It's not the case that all B is A."

Translate above into logic: /(B->A) = some B is /A

My takeaway - Interpretation of Partial Distribution:

When an argument states "O does not give every X every Y," it is important to recognize that it doesn't mean O gives Y to some X completely; it could also mean no X is given Y completely or that different Xs got partial Y.

The flaw often assumes that if not everyone got everything, then someone must have gotten it all, which is not necessarily true. Always watch out for this misinterpretation of partial distribution.

journalism : to report a news item in advance of

wow I love Kevin's explanation!

Hi there, in my opinion, even if the word were changed to inconspicuously, AC D still cannot be the correct one.

As JY pointed out, the principle of fairness in AC D is completely different from the one in our stimulus. Put differently, AC D fails to bolster the argument in the stimulus, which is concerning the equal distribution of winning chances among all entrants. All AC D is doing is providing us with a separate and independent premise to back up the stimulus's conclusion. This is not how a correct strengthening AC works.

Thank you. The side note helps a lot

No, because we still can't tell whether the "principles" mentioned are common law doctrines or not. And the word "among" suggests that the principles are themselves common law doctrines or included in the common law doctrines.

The author concedes that elevated CO2 level can enhance photosynthetic rate and increase certain plants' growth, just as some experts predict at the very first sentence.

Nevertheless, the author makes the point that the benefits of the CO2 increase are not as great as those experts had predicted. For instance, not all agricultural crops will be bountiful, and there is little chance that the enhanced absorption of CO2 will slow down the rate of global warming.

I think it's okay to regard this question as an LR weakening question. But AC E does not have the effect of weakening here.

The hypothesis mentioned in the passage is that "the larger loss of high-P-efficiency plants resulted from low-P-efficiency plants' thriving is impeding the overall plants abundance."

The scenario in AC C directly contradicts the above hypothesis, making it inconsistent with the hypothesis. If AC C is true, then it definitely wrecks the argument.

The scenario described in AC E is one in which the decline of one kind of plant is restricting the ability of another to flourish in particular regions. This is consistent with the hypothesis because:

(i) The AC E does not discuss higher or lower P-efficiency; and

(ii) Both two plants are in decline, thus unable to demonstrate a counteracting effect in the overall abundance.

As an aside, in an LR weakening question, a statement that is taken to be true but ends up having no bearing on the argument cannot in any way strengthen or weaken the argument.

Regarding the normative claim in AC A:

Should signals a normative claim, which involves a value judgment or recommendation.

Expressions like the best way or the most effective option also imply a value judgment, though in a slightly different form. When you say, "the best way to achieve X is by doing A," you're implicitly evaluating A as superior to other alternatives based on some standard, such as efficiency or effectiveness in achieving X. This involves judgment, since you're deciding what makes something "best" or "most effective," and this judgment is based on the goals or values of the person making the claim.

--- Credit to ChatGPT :)

I can now see the author's arrangement of this passage much more clearly, thanks to this explanation video.

I thought the author consistently agreed with the opinions of criminologists. I have just come to realize how much the author criticizes them, and instead of appealing to criminologists, he independently proposes the rehab as a solution. RC is killing me.