p1: W thinks abolition was economically driven (answer for Q23) rather than humanitarian. D and E reexamined this conclusion.

p2: D thinks there is more of a humanitarian reason; not economic because there is such a deep divide in class

- The author interjects saying that D failed to show how the deeply divided class combined with conservative politics could have resulted in abolition (answer for 25).

p3: E is more on W's side. He thinks the Brits were not humanitarian at all (answer for Q27). It was the growing economics that rendered forced labor unnecessary and counterproductive.

- Note the author does not interject much here, out of W, D, E he seems to agree with E most.

The hardest question might be 26, I was only able to use elimination to choose the correct answer. We know that D and E sorta disagree on economic and humanitarian factors as the reasons for the abolition and I used that very basic understanding to guide me to eliminate BCD. For A and E, D never says much about political activism, and I know D definitely agrees with A. So I was able to choose A

The correct answer addresses the self-selected group flaw: the sample is already old people oriented then the conclusion concludes something about less melatonin as a person ages.

To me, there is no such correlation causation flaw. Melatonin having a causation relation with sleep is a given: "melatonin plays a role in the biological clock." The core is that a sample of old insomnia people show that melatonin help them sleep. Thus it must be that they have less melatonin than young people. The core in this conclusion is not about arguing whether melatonin causes alleviating insomnia but addressing a comparison. However, this comparison is invalid because it is a self-selective sample.

This question slowed me down and I really wasted time on this because it seemed like the correct answer was already in the stimulus so I was second-guessing my answer. The takeaway is that I guess it is okay if they give you something sort of verbatim in the stimulus

Upon my first reading, it seemed like a sufficient necessary confusion. There are two types of these: illegal reversal and illegal negation. And I checked, it was not sufficient necessary confusion. Then I realized it was sort of a present vs future mistake, which is also a cookie-cutter that occurred multiple times in the past: it is not predictable now does not mean it will never be predictable. Note the conclusion says never.

For me, the comment that helped me understand is the one that points out that the stimulus already suggests carbon deposits are INSIDE the crust.

Then just like JY points out, we just need the coexistence of carbon deposits & living organisms (aka biomarker) to weaken it. Then D points out that living organisms (some bacteria thriving) are inside the crust as well.

I think practicing how to memorize the whole passage does help. However, I think writing it down is too much time wasted. You can achieve same effect by recording yourself saying the whole passage out loud from memory. In fact, this is an approach recommended by Loophole by Ellen (it's a LSAT LR book that some people find helpful).

okay I stared at this question for ages during timed. During BR I realized lsac used "the general assembly", not a general assembly. So that implies its a single occurring meeting. Otherwise it would say "a general meeting"

p: S infection -> rundown

c: presence of S bacteria is not sufficient enough to conclude S infection

ac b:

p:boom -> alkaline

c: 6 hr sunlight is not sufficient enough to conclude boom

premise1: Shakespeare were poor

premise 2: people claim that Shakespeare did not write those plays

conclusion: those people were motivated by snobbery

A is wrong because author is not arguing whether the claim is true.

B is wrong because it is admitting the conclusion! Note that this is arguing people who purely is motivated is also motivated by historical evidence. This is saying they can be both!! They can be both motivated by snobbery AND historical evidence. This is basically going off from the conclusion. We don't care about arguments that happen after conclusion. We only care about how conclusion is reached.

D is right because it provides an alternative explanation for the second premise: people claim that Shakespeare did not write those plays not because they are snobbery but because they believed it was factually inaccurate.

If AC A says hymns that have known to be written by homer instead just "attributed to", then it would be correct.

Box office of a film can depend on its viewers finding it funny even if the success of box office only indicates financial success.

premise 1. domesticated radishes and wild radishes (considered weed) are raised together

premise 2. wild radishes started to develop the same flower color as domesticated one

conclusion: resistance to pesticide, a genetically engineered trait can also pass from domesticated crop to weed

to strengthen, we just need to say passing on one trait (flower color) is harder than passing another trait (genetically engineered resistance)

"drugs are actually good for you."

another best line from jy

During timed I was down to B, C and D. During BR I was down to C and D. I eventually picked C but now I figured out why D.

Argument Core:

Watching yourself exercising motivates you more (than me watching other people exercising).

I thought C can prove that if I am an already-motivated person then I won't exercise more.

I thought D can prove that how do I know it's me exercising motivates me? It could be my twin (somebody who looks like me) exercising motivates me more.

I eventually picked C because I was not sure, so I just picked the more normal looking answer choice. But now see how AC C did not include the comparative part in argument core. Highly motivated people are just a small part of the population in both groups. It means no matter what types of videos they watched (self or others exercising), they ALL tend to show no difference in the amount they exercise. So this AC actually has very little relevance to supporting the core, which contains a comparative relationship.

To build a new station requires:

1. close to ngp

2. close to large water body

3. close transimission lines

4. neighbor won't oppose

Currently, every large water near ngp encounters opposition, so currently we cannot build a new ngp eg station unless we satisfy the failed necessary condition. One way to satisfy it is by expanding our current ngp. It will not guarantee the building of a new station, but it is definitely a necessary condition, so C fits perfectly.

We are evaluating whether darker roasts will irritate stomach less than the lighter roasts. So what will irritate? It is given in the first sentence that the caffeine in coffee will irritate. So one way to evaluate the amount of irritation is to compare the amount of caffeine contained by dark roast and light roast. A does that by asking whether darker roasts contain more cafffeine than lighter roasts.

#help I still don't get how A weakens the argument.. Will somebody help?

I get why E is correct but I don't understand why A weakens

argument core:

p: no single disease is fatal to that many different species; thus diseases as a whole did not cause the extinction of that many different species

ac b: no single of us can fix both windows and door; thus us as a whole cannot fix both window and door

ac c: no single of movies can satisfy five of us; thus we need to go home

take away: for this question, I think it all comes down to what the conclusions say: c needs to explicitly say something like thus movies as a whole cannot satisfy us instead of us going home. I sorta made an assumption in my head when I read c timed and I was a little blurred by the language in b so I quickly made the decision instead of going back to b to parse out the language. I knew the logic but I didn't spend enough time to parse out the single vs whole difference in conclusion.

The gap is that the subject in the conclusion (all of those) is not the same as the subject as the premise (most).

This question reminds me of an earlier flaw or weakening question about water supply, where the stimulus said the water source is ample worldwide so we don't have to worry about it. The correct answer of that question is that some areas don't have ample water compared to others. This is the exactly same here: the correct answer for this question is pointing out although artworks are a lot some people don't have access to them. Sadly I fell for the same trap for both questions for both timed and BR :(

M says double blind study is used to test the efficacy of a drug. M concludes that because of the various effects, we now know which group is which and we are not able to perform the double blind study on this test anymore.

NOTE: M says nothing about whether the drug is effective!!! (aka the outcome of the double blind study). M only says we now know which group is which.

E concludes that M cannot draw that conclusion, because M is assuming the drug is effective or ineffective (having an outcome produced)

Now this question is more like a most strongly supported question: which answer choice is most strongly supported? We now know that E misinterpreted M's argument. E thinks M is saying M knows the outcome. so D is a close match

1. low wage -> ⬆️ # of workers -> ⬇️PNT -> ⬇️productivity -> ⬇️living standard

2. high wage -> ⬆️ productivity

conclusion:

- high wage -> good economy

we need to show that good productivity leads to good economy

i think a still makes a little assumption, but it is better than other choices in terms of what we are trying to show

this section slaughtered me

Reading from the top, jotting down the following:

1. kind -> prosper

2. dislike & respect (from this we can conclude the negation of (dislike -> disrespect ), it tells us that disrespect is not a necessary condition of the dislike, but for the purpose of answering this question, it is irrelevant.)

3. dislike -> content

4. dislike -> kind

Organizing a little bit, we have: content -> dislike -> kind -> prosper, the second premise seems useless

The way to negate a -> b is to find a & not b

B says content & not prosper

so we like B

The first sentence gave it away: for long time it was believed that only classical Euclidean geometry could provide a correct way of mathematically representing the universe. Then the author continues opposing that. This gives us B

1: mp: Our understanding is not proportional to the data we have.

i.e. a method to split nuclei was already there: Italians (Enrico Fermi) first bombarded uranium then Austrian (Lise Meitner) found nuclear fission

2: Scientists did think atom-splitting was possible but they did not think it would happen during bombing neutrons.

3: Meitner could not identify uranium neutron bombing leftovers because she thought it would be some elements close to uranium. Later her friend Hahn found out that it was Barium.

4: Meitner finally realized she was splitting atoms. Refresh of mp: relevant evidence had been present.