I couldn't decide between A and D, which both use the company's overall profits as a reason to not take the action suggested in the conclusion. I had this problem because I didn't clearly grasp that the conclusion is "we should try [the marketing campaign]", as opposed to, "save the product." When there is a referential phrase in the conclusion, I should pay close attention to what the phrase is referring to. In this question, because the "it" refers to "marketing campaign," D is the more relevant weakener.

@83196 Thanks for the update man! Time for me to re-download the app.

I couldn't efficiently translate D into Lawgic and wasted a lot of time. (You actually don't need to.) Here's what D is saying in conditional logic:

an increase in attendance at places of worship → making text and rituals more modern

And here's the lesson on Clarification for "the only": https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/clarification-for-the-only/.

D is factually inaccurate because the author claims the opposite, namely: making text and rituals more modern → an increase in attendance at places of worship

Hi there, you're right that D allows the scenario you described to happen. However, D also allows ecologically friendly detergents to have other harmful chemicals while regular detergents only harm the environment with surfactants. In that case, it would strengthen the argument. So yes, generally speaking, a solid point that definitely weakens the question - even just a little bit - is better than an open question that can strengthen or weaken or do nothing to the argument. Hope that helps!

I know this might not seem like an option but you can always start making nerdier friends...on the Internet.

Hi there,

Here's my summary of the stimulus:

Atmospheric winds in WA -> formation of hurricanes [causal relationship]

Abundant rainfalls in SSA ~ hurricanes hit US [correlation]

Therefore,

Abundant rainfalls in SSA -> atmospheric winds in WA -> formation of hurricanes [causal relationship]

*Note: The arrows represent causal relationships in this specific context instead of conditional relationships.

The second statement only says, "when A happens, B happens." We actually don't know if abundant rainfalls cause hurricanes hit the US mainland with particular frequency based on this information alone. That's confusing correlation with causation. C is the best match for this flaw.

Another flaw in the stimulus:

Even if we go as far as taking the second statement as a causal relationship, the conclusion still can't be drawn. You see, we now have two things that simultaneously cause hurricanes in the US: the winds and the rainfalls. It takes a bit of a leap to conclude that one of these possibly-independent causes of hurricanes causes the other. What if they are both signs of Thora, the goddess of hurricanes, who travels on her carriages across the Atlantic and brings destruction to the US?

If you go with this interpretation, it would be harder to slap a "correlation is not causation" label on it, which makes C less appealing.

Hope that helps!

Hi @hosnyyhm189 ,

I don't think so. The biggest gap of the newly appointed president's argument is that he/she only mentions the award criterion "at present." We have no information on whether that has changed in the past 15 years.

Why is it relevant? Here's a scenario where the number of people passed over the award remains unchanged, whereas the number of salespeople at Wilson's has decreased over the past 15 years:

15 years ago:

Number of salespeople: 1000

Award criterion: top 60%

Salespeople awarded: 600

Salespeople passed over for awards: 400

at present:

Number of salespeople: 600 (decreased)

Award criterion: top third

Salespeople awarded: 200

Salespeople passed over for awards: 400

In this scenario, the number of salespeople has decreased (the SA you suggested), but the number of salespeople passed over for awards remain the same. So this condition doesn't guarantee the president's conclusion.

(C), however, addresses this gap between criterion at present and criterion before, which is why it is a sufficient assumption.

Hope this helps!

Hi there, I hope this is not too late!

I ruled out A as well because I didn't see how the portrait of ones father had anything to do with "a unique work of art with aesthetic or historical value." The key here is that the judgement in A applies to "anyone," including the children of George Washington...or [insert your famous historical figure here].

Shannon would allow these portraits to be destroyed, whereas Jorge wouldn't allow all of these portraits to be destroyed, at least not the ones with aesthetic or historical value. That's why they are committed to disagree on A.

In case you also picked E, which I did. I glanced over the "legally" in "legally permissible" in E. We are uncertain whether Shannon is talking about rights in a legal sense. Jorge's principle seems also to apply to moral rights only. So E is not the right answer choice because we have no idea about both people's views on it.

Oops, posted the same thing twice. #internetproblems

Hi there! Not sure what the explanation several years back was, but here's my attempt:

This is a hard MC question because the conclusion is not directly stated. You see, the argument starts with a two-piece conditional statement, with the sufficient condition disguised as a question (eww):

The government is right to abandon efforts to determine [insert all that fun stuff] -> it can be reasonably argued that the only acceptable level of toxic in food is zero.

The stuff after the "however" negates the necessary condition for this statement, which implies that it's not right for the government to abandon the efforts. This "however sentence" is a premise that supports the main conclusion.

The stuff after the "furthermore" adds additional reasons to support the idea that the government shouldn't stop its efforts in determining...stuff.

(A) the government should continue trying to determine [insert all that fun stuff] is a paraphrase of my version of the main conclusion. It's what other pieces of this argument are trying to support.

(D), which is essentially the stuff after "furthermore," offers a reason to support (A). So it's not the main conclusion of this argument.

Hope this helps!

Hi there!

The stimulus says the ingredients used were the same and both were produced through similar processes that involved:

subjecting mixture to high heat;

mixing in lead.

I took the "technique" in C to refer to how the high heat was applied and/or how lead was mixed in. In other words, the details that made the process of producing the pigment different from that of producing the glass. If we go with this interpretation, the fact that very few people knew how to make Han purple tells us nothing about its relationship with white glass, which makes C irrelevant.

But even if we use your interpretation and accept that the technique was referring to the similar production processes, we still only know that there are very few people who knew how to make the pigment. Sure, the process for making the glass is similar, but not the same, right? Wouldn't it require a little jump to assume that the small group of people who knew how to make the pigment overlapped with the however-large group of people who knew how to make white glass?

I think C would be a stronger strengthener if it at least mentioned white glass. Sadly, it doesn't.

Hope this helps!

Based on the way you phrased your question, it seems like you considered the first sentence of the stimulus the main conclusion?

I think the relationship between the two statements is a little different from "main conclusion and support." The author seems to be suggesting, that the question IS imprecise and SHOULD remain so, in order for intelligent lives to be found and recognized. Both of the statements support this unstated prescription. The first sentence sets up the "problem" of imprecision. The second sentence tells us that trying to solve the "problem," i.e. precisely define intelligent life, is counterproductive. Therefore? The "therefore" can be a separate LSAT question :wink:

(C) Claiming that "intelligent life" cannot be adequately defined.

Does the author claim that? The author seems to be saying that a more precise definition is undesirable, because it might prevent us from finding and recognizing intelligent lives elsewhere in the universe. The author doesn't directly comment on whether "intelligent life" CAN be defined. He/she is only talking about the consequences of holding on to a precise (narrow) definition.

(D) Arguing that the claim, if acted on, would be counterproductive.

The author does say acting on the claim that "we should define intelligent life more precisely in order to find them in the universe" would be counterproductive. It seems to be the gist of the second sentence.

I actually chose C initially, lol. Thanks for bring up this cool question.

We are looking for a method of reasoning applied by the senator.

(A) The senator said that a reduction in taxes would increase deficit (i.e. decrease revenue). Does that imply that increasing tax gains would increase revenue? Not necessarily. Maybe revenue would remain unchanged when taxes increase, because some other thing would happen. There's just no way for us to know based on what the senator said, and it wouldn't be fair to claim that the senator implies that.

(C) "expressly stating" is what made me eliminate C. The senator did expressly state that people with common sense would believe in the aforementioned principle. He didn't expressly state his opponents lack common sense. Okay, maybe he implied it. But he didn't state it. Also, this quote is addressed to the senators voting for the two plans. Maybe some of those senators are his "opponents," but we don't know.

(D) Which one is the "unpopular legislation"?

(B) and (E) are fairly similar. I actually went for (E). I think you were right that the "could not imagine any senator..." is a reason to eliminate (E). The senator reasoned that out of the two studies, his party's study would be more appealing. We actually don't know if the senator thinks his party's study is more "objective," which is another extra thing (E) threw in.

(B) As I said earlier, there are two studies and the senator thinks the other plan is "dead" and his audience would obviously vote for his plan. B seems to be the most fitting description, supported by the sentence you quoted.

I have the same issue. @wenyizhou582 ? @wenyizhou582 ?

lol, just to be more helpful, my iOS version is 12.3.1 and I'm using the app on an iPhone 6s.

Hi guys,

I only had one LG section. The routine/full inspection one was real.

For RC, the one with the literary theory and science comp reading was real.

This question strikes me as very similar to PT86 S1 Q1.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-86-section-1-question-01/

"A type of animal does X. This is probably because of Y."

Eval option: Are there alternative explanations for X?

Weaken option: The animal does X for reasons other than Y.

Strengthen option: Rules out an alternative explanation or strengthens the link between X and Y.

I totally missed the distinction between "poetry meeting" and "FREE poetry meeting." Thanks, J.Y.!

Hi Ms Nikki,

Thanks for the detailed explanation!

Pardon my inaccurate phrasing. I intended to say I didn't consider drinking milk as consuming cooked food. I probably had lines 17-18: "cooking could not have any impact on biological evolution," in mind while typing my comment. I was confused about how the adoption of milk drinking (isn't milk raw?) could strengthen the claim that humans could be biologically adapted to cooked food.

Looking at this again, I think I also misinterpreted the argument I was supposed to strengthen. We are not asked to show that humans could adapt to cooked food. We are simply asked to weaken the "widespread assumption" that humans can't adapt to cooked food because the change was too recent. In that case, any evidence showing that humans were biologically adapted to something new, foodwise, would do the job.

Your explanation: "'drinking milk' is relatively similar because it is something new that humans consumed" helped me reach this realization. Raw or not, milk from domesticated animals was something that human started consuming not so long ago ("5,000 years or less") and became biologically adapted to. That would definitely strengthen the argument.

I keep going back-and-forth between D and E for this question.

I realized that I was wrong to choose D because I made a reading error in the first sentence. The stimulus says the wages of many employees will be protected from cuts. That's different from saying the wages of employees will be prevented (i.e. fully protected) from cuts.

So what is necessary is that the law would work on some execs (E). It doesn't have to work on all execs (D).

Yay! I'm glad that my comment was somewhat useful.

Thanks so much Anna Marie! And here's the link guys: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-june-2007-section-2-question-11/

hi Heyaaaaaa, I think that would count as an error if the example didn't fit into the principle. However, it seems to me that written language was once a kind of "new information handling technology." You see, however low-tech it appears now, it was a new tool to organize and preserve information. Putting symbolic marks on tablets/paper is pretty techy when compared with...memorizing and telling stories. Hope that helps?

Just for clarification, is Suarez's first question simply irrelevant? I don't see how it relates to Huang's arguments and suspect that the LSAT writers intentionally put it there to bother me (and slow me down).

Q25, B

Maybe I am biased, but I eliminated B both during PT and BR because I didn't consider drinking milk "cooking."

Ugh, I guess the other answer choices aren't any better. After all, this is the only answer choice that says something about humans being biologically adapted to non-foraged food.

Hi Sojohnboy! Kathy actually wasn't analogizing. She was challenging Mark's "argument from analogy" by pointing out a key difference between the two drugs compared. So Kathy was saying: Hey man, sure, those two drugs have the same physiological mechanism, but that doesn't mean they have the same side effects because they are chemically different.