#feedback

if we were to change this to a strengthening question, would b still be correct because it is a some statement which makes it general and easy to defend. also neither weakens or adds strength to the argument?

suspected criminal does not fall into the subset of being a criminal. in other words, this was an awful comparison because rabbits and gray rabbits are definitive. suspected criminlas are not definitive, because they still need to be tried and convicted. for example, all gray rabbits are rabbits, that cloud looks like a rabbit and is gray, so it must be a rabbit. just awful logic all around. however, this is important to take into account when comparing different sets, the sets and subsets have to be similar. a better way for the author to make a better comparison wouldve been with gang members and gang tattoos. if a person has a blood tattoo, then he is a gang member. it falls in the set of gang members, but a subset of different gangs.

just got done with the first section and wow. out of fifteen questions, I got twelve correct. I have needed this method for so long, because i have struggled in the past. 7sage has got this method down and i think it is unbreakable.

most of these questions come at the end of the LR section which means the frequency of the right answer is going to be in C,D, or E, which the test makers purposely do to make you chew up time. so when presented with one of these questions 18-25+, immediately start skimming C,D, and E or shallow dip reasoning. if all those dont fit, then go for a or b. This strategy has helped me become more accurate and time efficent. also, focus on the conclusion and if the conclusion seems fuzzy, resort back to the premises. hope this helped.

not a conspiracy. the frequency of right answers in questions 18-25+ are C,D, or E. They do want you to chew up time. hope this helps and don't ask how i know this lol.

the author's argument is a mere recommendation. JY does a great job of explaining this at the beginning of the argument. There are three factors to this argument, health, happiness, and wealth. what A is saying (at least in my translation) is money should be acquired if you don't sacrifice your health, and if you do not sacrifice health, then you are happy which ties into the premise that" without health, happiness is unobtainable or "you are unhappy". This question is highly difficult, so my advice is not to worry too much about this question and instead focus on medium difficulty because those medium difficulties will show up more frequently on the test. hope this explanation helped.

similar to PSA, we do not want to select the contrapositive to the conclusion. Answer choice B is also a sufficient necessity trap. however, if you stick with the argument conclusion which is "traditional classroom education is ineffective" we can immediately go into the ACs and eliminate the ACs that do not mention ineffectiveness which is B.

easier way to see the right answer is by looking at new elements in the stimulus and conclusion. The premies talk about pleasure and the conclusion doesn't contain pleasure but contains merit which is new in the conclusion that we did not see in the premises. link those both together, then you have A which is the right answer. it creates the bridge for itself.

they have the same tactic per say. you want to link new elements in the stimulus with new elements in the conclusion.

not entirely. C is offering an additional premise rather than bridging the premise to the conclusion. However, C goes against one of the premises stated which says we have all the information we need from it. with or without the artifact, we would still know how those mosaics were created. the reason why A is the correct answer is because we want to assume that this argument is only concerned with archaeology rather than environmental, political, etc. A is assuming we are only arguing on archaeological terms. Yet, i got to this answer by POE, eliminating AC's that were bringing in new information outside of the stimulus. I hope this explanation helped

JY gave a good explanation of why E is wrong. I still have questions about it. For E, its attacking the conclusion, which we are not supposed to attack in weakening questions. Im still puzzled as to why D attacks the support. Can someone explain it better?

so is this part of the lesson using the justify the conclusion method. this method states (from a different LSAT study book) that you should link new elements in the premises with new elements in the conclusion. Are we doing the same thing here?

is it better to pick the more concise answer choice in comparisant to D and C. D is very concise in telling us that cheese and baked goods contain higher fat whereas C is very general in explaining the dietary difference. Essentially, is it better to choose answer choices that are concise and to avoid answer choices that are generalized?

is it better to go into these questions without any assumptions to avoid making the wrong assumption?

the third and first person viewpoint can vary, but its usually first person.

it is labeled as a premise because it gives support to why companies want to maximize profit. it also supports the conclusion that companies want to make healthier products. Sugar is seen sometimes as an unhealthy ingredient. Hope this helps.

for strengthening arguments its important to assume that the premises are true in order to add another supporting claim. however, this assumption varies on LR question types.