- Joined
- Nov 2025
- Subscription
- Live
Admissions profile
Discussions
This one is a little mean, but POE can get you there quickly.
Eliminate ABD. Set aside C if you like.
E says "It fails to distinguish between a true claim that has mistakenly been believed to be false" this is the idea that the theorem was unprovable; that has now been shown to be true while believed to be false. So far so good.
"...and a false claim that has mistakenly been believed to be true." Where is the false claim that has been mistakenly believed to be true? We can't say lying/mistaken is false, only that one premise supporting its claim has been proven false. It could still be true.
C wins by default, but if you want to understand it: it is essentially a fixed version of E.
"It mistakes something that is necessary for its conclusion to follow" i.e. for the theorem to be provable it has to be...proved. And it has! So that would be necessary if we want to say that the claim of lying/mistaken is incorrect.
" for something that ensures that the conclusion follows." This is it; there isn't a guarantee that there is or isn't lying/mistaken going on. What has been made clear is that we can't say there is lying/mistaken because the theory is unprovable. There is still a chance for other evidence to lead us in either direction.
@PkmnTrainerKevin Ash would disagree. Yes, Hopis receive names during various events during their life. But they don't make reference to events IN the recipient's life. You could even argue they refer to events that are very much NOT in the recipient's life, given that the name giver is 1) outside their clan and 2) names refer to that name giver's clan.
If I interviewed the author, I am 100% sure they would not say their primary purpose was to "criticize two influential views of names"; rather, they would say something that acknowledged that criticism as part of their primary purpose being to either propose a more expansive/alternative theory and/or further reduce the neglect around societies with names serving other functions.
BUT: that is not an available answer choice. So yes, LSAC is wrong. But also: the least-incorrect answer choice according to them is D.
@zv301 yes. You can replace semantic with a made-up word in both places and it makes no difference (replace it with an imaginary word if you like to test); the key is that you need to close read well enough to see that:
-European thinkers deny XXXX in P1
-P2 shows how that is not true for Hopis
and,
D is the answer that describes how XXXX can be found with Hopis.
@HimajaReddy Nah, this isn't great.
The reason C is wrong is that there is a comparison set up here between the floor beneath rigs and control sites farther away. The stimulus says there were "no significant differences."
So even if C is true, in this case it could be very persuasively argued that there isn't contamination from these rigs since we are not seeing the predicted differences when compared to the control locations.
Doesn't weaken.
C: during these past 5 years, CXC has increased in virulence.
Looking for something that attacks that idea.
A) wrong. This would mean the 18% should be even higher.
B) wrong. This would mean the 5% should be even lower.
C) How lovely, more steaks for everyone. But not attacking the argument, just the beef shortage.
D) Here we go. This is like the covid number evolution: as things progress we are able to deal with mild cases effectively without reporting, so the overall numbers are skewed.
E) Another win for survival of the fittest, but not attacking.
Interesting one as there is a lag between when you think you will get the explanation from the analysts as they include a fact first. Ultimately what we are attacking is this:
C: even slight changes in production can significantly affect the amount of rice available on world markets
So we are looking for something that attacks that.
A) Ok, but does it directly attack the conclusion? Doesn't seem very strong. Leave it as potential weak answer.
B) Doesn't attack.
C) Whoa. This means that there is actually a different amount of rice available since stereotypical behavior changes. That is exactly what we are looking for. Best so far.
D) This one is excellent, but for the wrong team. This supports what the analysts are saying. If you chose this one you got caught up in the moment just like LSAC was baiting you towards.
E) Doesn't attack.
Very kind of LSAC to straight-up state the conclusion. Now we just need to disprove it to some degree.
C: fusion had been achieved
A) wrong. We're not given dets on how that would be relevant
B) wrong. As with A we're not given dets on how that would be relevant
C) Very nice. There is helium-4 in ordinary air and we found about the same amount in the chamber. Promising.
D) wrong. Again not given dets on how that would be relevant
E) wrong. Again not given dets on how that would be relevant
C ftw.
@superchillasian I'm not sure what you were trying to say unless you meant weakens for E, but it's not what you actually wrote.
Right in 58 seconds. Unconvinced this one should be a 5* difficulty. How I solved below.
C: the viceroy is so seldom preyed on because of its visual resemblance to the monarch
So we are looking for a different explanation as to why the viceroy is so seldom preyed upon, i.e. "The viceroy is NOT seldom preyed upon due to similarities but instead it is because _________." Maybe the primary monarch predators are blind. Maybe viceroys rarely survive to adulthood and only juvenile viceroys look like monarchs. Whatever, just something that attacks that.
A) doesn't attack.
B) also doesn't attack.
C) also doesn't attack.
D) AHA. This is an alternative explanation: the viceroy is seldom attacked NOT because of its similarities but instead due to its inherent characteristic. The best so far.
E) also doesn't attack.
Learning: for MSS, it can also be helpful to consider the answer choices as potential conclusions and then instead of thinking about "most strong" instead use the lens "which of these conclusions is the least weak?" based on the information in the stimulus.
This is tricky and basic at the same time. There are 2 tricky aspects to this question. 1) making sure you find the conclusion 2) avoiding getting confused by unnecessary information.
The way to avoid this is to diagram.
P1: freedom --> social integrity
P2: good life --> social integrity
C: freedom --> rule of law
We have freedom in the conclusion and a premise, but no R of L. The way I do this is after diagramming the above, I circle the things in common (the two freedoms). I then see what I am missing in the conclusion (R of L). Then I see where I could place the missing piece within a premise in order to guarantee the conclusion.
In this case putting R of L after social integrity in P1 makes that work. Now I know I am looking for an answer that has if social integrity then rule of law (SI--> R of L). Possible I might need the contrapositive (no rule of law then no social integrity).
A) wrong, but tricky. Has the right elements but the wrong linkage. It's saying R of L --> SI. Wrong order.
B) SI --> R of L. It was even nice and didn't make me contrapositive. How lovely.
C) wrong. Missing my 2 elements.
D) wrong. F --> SI. Missing my 2 elements.
E) wrong. R of L --> F. Missing my 2 elements.
Frankly this would be an easier question EXCEPT the hardest part: completely ignoring P2 since it doesn't aid in reaching the conclusion. Diagramming FTW in order to make relationships clear regardless of how LSAC tries to disguise things.
I'm not sure why throwing in usually was attractive for some people. If that's you, adopt a universal rule that if the stimulus is all black and white (it is/it isn't, none of the most/some/might/could etc.), you can't inject gray into an answer choice and have it work.
P1: Detail --> Difficult+$
P2: Rational --> Benefits outweigh
C: Detail --> Rational
So the answer needs to let us make a concrete rationale for why no details is rational. It's pretty apparent to look at the premises and see the why: we need the benefits of NOT acquiring details to outweigh the benefits of acquiring. So the 2 elements in an answer choice should compare the yes vs. no detail benefits.
A) wrong; has usually
B) wrong; this is just restating a solitary point twice
C) wrong; has usually
D) wrong; has usually
E) Detail --> benefits outweigh
LSAC was even kind with the answer choices here since 3 are obviously wrong with the inclusion of usually and the other is pretty obviously wrong in restating a single thing twice.
Found this one incredibly easy, although the video was not as helpful in my eyes.
If you go ahead and diagram it you get:
P1: health --> happiness
C: don't sacrifice health for money
Just looking at that it's straightforward to see the potential logic path:
health --> happiness --> money
The missing gap is connecting happiness to money. A does that.
@WilliamStimpson Best answer here. Got it right but trying to standardize my process. This does that; well done.
This might be the best explanation video I have ever watched. Well done @Kevin_Lin
Somewhat unique question here.
I would say the stimulus is more of a 4/easy 5 difficulty while the answer choices are 1/2.
Interesting. Messed with me a little but got it right thinking that it was stronger to go with C than B. Some is contained within All, but still a weird question.
Sometimes the video explanations on here get some flack, but I think this one is solid and straightforward. There are 3 things that contribute to value, and we can very clearly draw a line to 2 of them with the premises. We need to still check the third box to properly draw the conclusion "it is of high value." The dotted line between rarity and printing error needs to be further solidified, hence that answer.
A) wrong; further strengthens an existing relationship without checking an additional box (different version of E)
B) CORRECT; checks last box
C) wrong; very nice and not relevant
D) wrong; further clarifies relationship between existing 2 value contributors without adding the requisite third
E) wrong; we only care about condition in how it relates to this stamp's value
Liked this one a little bit (2:06 right).
A) doesn't work. If traffic did increase, it would be even more impressive.
B) come back to this
C) sneaky. We're only talking about fatalities, not accidents. Irrelevant.
D) It doesn't "take this for granted". You can argue it might be vulnerable to that if it were true, but that's not the question.
E) come back to this
Ok, down to B and E. If B were true, would it be a weakness of the argument? Seems like an obvious yes.
BUT: the question says that the argument is most vulnerable to the criticism "that it takes for granted that"...
Does it take for granted that the majority of drivers obeyed the new speed limit? No, it doesn't. It's merely open to the possibility.
What about E. Does it take for granted that "the number of traffic fatalities the year before the new speed limit was introduced was not abnormally high"? YES.
Think about it: if in the year before there were 2000 fatalities where there are usually 100, and then this year they RAISE the speed limit by 1 MPH. Even if the new fatalities number ends up being 250, the argument STILL would be wrong. And that's if we raised the speed limit!
Struggled my way to a 4:00 "positive I was correct" answer choice.
A) didn't love it
B) The stimulus explicitly doesn't allow for this: "never change that set, except by rejecting"
C) The only time number of beliefs directly comes into play is "fewer and fewer beliefs" (not relevant here) or "many beliefs in order to survive" (doesn't seem relevant either)
D) It might suggest that, I guess, in a roundabout way. But that would still be weak and it doesn't take it for granted.
E) This one threw me. In order to survive we need many beliefs. Do the beliefs we need in order to have many beliefs need to all be correct?
Debated between A and E for awhile. Ultimately eliminated E because it doesn't talk about survival beliefs, only that we need correct for many. There is an obvious situation where we could have a litany of wrong beliefs because we haven't gotten loads of evidence and pared down to a smaller number yet.
The conclusion is compelling to agree with on a personal level because the vast majority of people reading this want to point out the flaw that we should also add in true beliefs when we encounter them. Figuring out the alternative right answer is where things are tricky.
Bear in mind our goal is to weaken the argument. That means we need to weaken the conclusion "the most effective way to lose body fat is to eat much protein and shun carbohydrates" either directly or indirectly.
A) water retention masks body fat loss. That seems like it would weaken the conclusion. Keep it around,
B) The author takes a leap to correlate losing weight with losing body fat, so we could potentially weaken things there. That seems like what B is doing when it says that High Protein-->significant body fat. Let's keep it around.
C) True in the real world, but doesn't weaken the "best way to lose BF = High Protein Low Carbs." Eliminate.
D) This would actually strengthen the argument to some degree. Eliminate.
E) Yo-yo ftw ("and keep it off"), but not relevant to our discussion. Eliminate.
Left with A and B. Can we attack either answer choice? Yep: what if the High Protein people in B also consume copious amounts of carbs as well? That seems like it would simply be a prescriptive weight-gain diet.
A is a little sneaky as an alternative explanation but does make it so that it is possible for the most effective way to lose WEIGHT to be HP+LC while the most effective way to lose BODY FAT could be LP+HC.