Answer choice D is correct because it is blocking out an alternate cause of Glutamate in the blood. What if it enters the blood from food or some other mechanism? Then the conclusion which says that it leaks from nerve cells to cause damage would not be strengthened. Answer choice D shows that it can only come from damaged nerve cells.

Answer choice C, Glutamate is the only neurotransmitter that leaks. What if its not? This doesn't strengthen or weaken the argument because whether or not it is the only one does not strengthen the conclusion that Glutamate leaking from damaged nerve cells is a cause of longterm brain damage.

@ said:

Here i you go!

https://quizlet.com/275899828/flaws-flash-cards/?i=1by9dn&x=1jqY

Feel free to PM me

What is the password for the quizlet flashcards? it is indicating that I need one.

False dichotomy disguised as conditional logic flaw.

SA; selena claims to have psychic powers. If we find out whether the claim is true(or false) → We will be able to determine if its possible do have psychic powers.

- IF we find out whether its true. We don’t know whether we can find out

A. This seems like a NA, but its not sufficient to prove out the conclusion that if we can determine whether Salena has the then we will determine whether they are possible

B. This took forever to understand but this is right. If we can find out whether Selena’s claim is true (or false)  then we will be able to determine whether it is possible to have psychic powers.

So we have to make 2 inferences from this conclusion

If Selena’s claim true → Then Possible to have psychic powers

If Selena’s claim true (false) → Then Possible to have psychic powers.

Contrapose this second conditional back, and we get:

If Possible to have psychic powers → Then Selena’s claim true

and this is the reverse of the 1st conditional, which indicates to us that Selenas claim being true is both a sufficient AND necessary condition for the claim that it's possible to have psychic powers

so it reads as such

If Selena’s claim true → Then Possible to have psychic powers

If Possible to have psychic powers → Then Selena’s claim true

=

Selena’s Claim true ↔ Possible to have psychic powers

And answer choice C says If possible to have psychic powers → Then Selena has them i.e (her claim is true)

C. If we find out whether she does. We don’t know whether we can find out. If we can then we will know

D. This is a contradiction. If her claim turns out to be false then we WILL know that its not possible

E. Conditional logic mixup of the conclusion in the stimulus

Inference;

A. Many children taught whole language learn, we cant infer in variable does anything

B. They are teaching in the whole language method the way words sound not how to represent sounds by meaning. When the person learns to read the alphabetic language, then the necessarily learn how to represent sounds symbolically, but we have no information on if the whole language method directly teaches that. Its just a necessary condition of learning the language

C. Unable to read Alphabetic Lang  /Phonetic and /Knowledge of sounds symbolically rep. This is conditional logic mixup so cant be right. Learning to read the alphabetic language is the sufficient condition, you cant negate it and keep it as the sufficient

D. Correct. This can be inferred because learning how sounds are symbolically represented is a NECESSARY condition of learning an alphabetic language, and since many children taught using the whole language method learn to read the alphabetic language then its necessarily the case that they learned how sounds are represented symbolically. This doesn’t say (like other AC did) that the whole language method DIRECTLY taught, but they did not prevent them from learning how sounds are symbolically represented which is necessary if they learned to read

E. This cant be inferred because if they learned to read (which many did using the whole language method) then they necessarily learned how to represent sounds symbolically, but we don’t have information to say whether it was the whole language method DIRECTLY that taught them this

MSS; outsiders believe they can bring in fresh ideas overlooked.

A. The argument doesn’t indicate anything about creativity rising with experience, they basically say outsiders can be creative but without experience its futile

B. The argument doesn’t indicate that people with experience rarely overlook creativity

C. Problem solving and creative solutions are used interchangeably in this argument. Creative SOLUTIONS, (not ideas or attempts), always come from people with experience in the field. this is MSS because if no relevant experience then solutions are futile(wont work).

Problem solved →Understand →themexperience. SO; If no experience then problem cant be solved(no creative solution)

D. We don’t know this based on the information. Maybe it does vary and you need more experience for something really complex and less for something simple

E. They should be trained before given any responsibility in that field? What if they are just an assistant or being trained and have minor responsibilities

Role; it is used in a premise to support the statement before it which is a SC that supports the MC which is the last sentence.

A. No its not the main conclusion

B. This is basically a paraphrase of D which says it’s a premsise supporting the MC

C. Its not an aside, it supports the claim that many entrepreneurs fail later for lack of management skills

D. no it doesn't support the MC directly. It supports the MC indirectly by supporting the SC

E. Yes it supports the SC(premise) which supports the main conclusion at the end of the argument

I have also recently started volunteering for a law firm on top of my work and study schedule to help give me some experience and strengthen my interest and resume in the field. This opportunity only requires you to volunteer a minimum of 4 hours per month, but also you can volunteer as much as you want. So if I left my job, I could dedicated the additional time I pick up to learning and gaining this valuable experience.

Another issue of concern is the politics of corporate America. I have a really great relationship with my boss right and and I mentioned going back to school and if she would write me a letter of rec. She said yes, but I think she was under the opinion I meant MBA and staying with the company while going to school. If I blindside my boss with a resignation I am afraid they will be blindsided and not want to write me the letter. I know this may sound crazy if you have a good relationship and they want to see you succeed, but another large Fortune 500 company I worked for thought less of you for leaving (even when you left on good terms and for good reason) because they acted like you were leaving the best opportunity of your life and no matter what you were doing now you were a fool for leaving. This happened to many people I know from that company and I don't want that to happen!!! THOUGHTS?!?

have you been practicing with flex exams or traditional 4 section PT's?

@ said:

I agree, I think quitting isnt a horrible way to go, especially because the only real concern is money, which points on the LSAT can make up for.

The only thing is, if you are already able to get 3-4 hours of studying per day, how much more are you planning to do? I dont think you need to crank out 6 hours a day to get a really high score. Then again, maybe the stress off of work, and studying earlier instead of after working all day might increase your focus/performance.

I would really like to focus on mastery of the test. Working full time and trying to cram in the 3 hours after work it doesn't always feel like I'm fully focused. I often feel like I am drained from work and like I a forcing myself to study more than I am excited to study and learn like I was when I started. Rushing around and trying to organize my days feels like a lot and that without breaks I am going through the motions or not fully engaged with what I am doing. I also feel like I am not getting great sleep balancing work, study and other activities.

@ said:

If your'e looking to get the most potential out of your LSAT score, full-time studying would be the way to go. the trade-off, or opportunity cost of you quitting and studying full-time would be the potential money you'd acquire in the time it takes you to achieve your target score. From a purely financial perspective, the pay off is more than likely worth it as your ROI from law school will likely supplement your lost capital from your study period within a few years (assuming you don't take on too much debt). In terms of how admissions committees view someone quitting their job and studying full-time, well most if not all that iv'e heard from (all top 30) have said that it will not have a negative impact on your application whatsoever- they understand that this is a difficult test. Not to mention that you already have a solid 3 years of work experience under your belt! SO, the fact that you have both work experience and the financial ability to supplement your full-time studying, I'd say you go for it!

Thank you for the advice! Very helpful and insightful. Another concern I have that I forgot to mention is that I am afraid if I quit, even if I am leaving under good terms, that my boss wouldn't want to write me a letter of recommendation. My boss really likes me and thinks I am doing a great job so I think it would blind side them if I put in my resignation. Thoughts on this?

MBT; some politicians who supported free trade with US, Can, Mex, now don’t support extending free trade to Latina America

A. We don’t know anything about those who do support trade with Latin America, so this is not a MBT

B. Again we don’t know anything about those who do support trade with Latin America

C. We don’t know if they changed their position on free trade. Maybe when they advocated for trade between US, Mex, Can they were against trade with Latin American, or maybe they support it, but just wont do it publicly

D. Not all = some…not. Not all politicians who strongly supported free trade among US, M, and C now publicly support extending free trade to Latin America. = Some politicians who strongly supported free trade among US, M, and C do not now publicly support extending free trade to Latin America. This is the correct answer some don’t publicly support it

E. Refusing to support publicly does not equal publicly opposed. This is wrong because the argument does not say anything about them being publicly opposed to trade with Latin America, it just says that they will not public support trade with Latin America

Weaken; Experiment with mice, one fed normal diet and one fed ginkgo were taught to navigate a maze. The ones who ate ginkgo were more likely to remember the maze the next day. however, the ginkgo might not have enhanced memory. Ginkgo has been shown to lower stress in mice and lowering very high stress tends to improve recall.

- what if the mice weren’t experiencing very high stress when they?

A. The doses of ginkgo given to the mice in the experiment was significantly higher than doses that have been shown to reduce stress in mice. Ok so was it too much where it rendered it ineffective? We would have to assume this to weaken. Or Did it still reduce stress but it was just more than necessary? This assumption would strengthen. Either way we would have to make assumptions about the effectiveness of too much than what has been shown to reduce stress. It could still work or it could be too much and be ineffective. We just don’t know

B. Correct; neither of the mice who received ginkgo or the normal diet exhibited signs of higher than normal stress. Since the ginkgo has been shown to lower VERY HIGH stress, and they were not showing signs of this, this would weaken the effect of the arguments conclusion that ginkgo didn’t help memory directly, it reduces very high stress so that’s why recall was improved.

C. Some chemical substances that reduce stress in mice also at least temporarily impair their memory. Is ginkgo one of those substances? Is ginkgo a chemical substance or an herb/natural? We would have to make assumptions for this to work to weaken

D. Scientists have not yet determined which substances in ginkgo are responsible for the reduction of stress. So are they conceding that ginkgo does lower stress but they just don’t know the mechanism? This would more so help the argument and does not weaken it that ginkgo is not directly responsible for memory, but reduces very high stress

E. The mice who received the ginkgo took just as long to as other mice to learn to navigate the maze. Ok so they took just as long to LEARN. The argument doesn’t say the ginkgo helped them learn, it says it helped with memory of the maze after they learned it.

RRE; a store normally sells about the same number of M hammers as S hammers. Last week M hammers were put on sale and placed in a display case just inside the store entrance while S hammers kept their usually price and location. However S hammers slightly outsold M hammers last week.

- what if people don’t look when they walk in the store and go right to the normal hammer spot to buy one?

A. For the first several seconds upon entering a store, customers don’t take detailed notice of the stores merchandise. So they walked right past them. This would explain it

B. Most of the stores customers are attracted to quality and service rather than low prices. The argument doesn’t indicate the quality of either hammer. And the store service would likely be the same

C. Customers who bought the M hammer last week commonly mentioned the sale as their reason for buying the hammer. This doesn’t explain why more people bought the S hammer when it wasn’t on sale. So what if some went for the sale

D. The store sent out flyers that publicized the sale of the M hammer. This doesn’t explain anything, you would think this would help with the sale of the hammers. More like a waste of print by the store. poor marketing

E. In general a single item on sale will not motivate more people to make a special to the store. Ok so the sale didn’t entice more people to make a special trip. But why did the S hammer which wasn’t on sale sell better for the customers who did come to the store? Doesn’t explain

Interested

SA:

A. Conclusion is it is a mistake to partly blame railroad co. capable adults should know better. Gates could be made larger but adults might still go around them? This doesn’t prove the conclusion

B. Fell for this on the timed run. Some is too weak. What measure do they and do they not have to take? This could leave open the possibility that the railroad company was partly responsible.

C. Correct. This proves that it is a mistake that railroad companies are even partly responsible

D. Small children are not involved? Completely irrelevant.

E. Does the railroad co. have a responsibility to public safety? And if it is not unlimited(limited). What are their limitations?

This is an excellent candidate to skip during a timed run.

Food co op = type of consumer co op. consumer co op products usually cheaper than other stores. Thus food co op more economical than supermarket.

- Consumer co ops USUALLY cheaper. What if a food co op is an outlier that doesn’t fall into that category?

A. Sports cars use more gas per mile than other cars. Thus cars uses much more gasoline. Not analogous, what category are the other cars under. Usually -> always

B. Fresh veggies more expensive and spoil faster than frozen. Thus better to buy frozen. What category are frozen in that they usually do something and could be an outlier that wouldn’t fall into always? Doesn’t happen here

C. CORRECT; bicycling is a private means of transportation. Private transportation TENDS to cause more pollution than public. Thus a person who rides a bicycle causes more pollution than one who rides a bus. Bicycles fall into a category of something that tends to do something but are an outlier that doesn’t fall into that category

D. Not close. People tend to choose healthful food over non healthful as long as it tastes at least and good and healthful food is tasting better than it ever has. Thus more people must be choosing healthful foods. What if just cause its better tasting than it was its still not as tasty as non healthful, also this doesn’t line up with the analogy of usually in one category that is an outlier

E. The argument isn’t concluding the best way to do something

RRE/Strengthen: device that steers cows back to pasture. Outfitting ALL of the herd Costs FAR more than ANY other methods like fences, but device maker predicts it will be widely purchased at current price.

- what if not needed for all of the herd?

A. If produced in large quantities device will come down? Doesn’t strengthen claim that they buy at CURRENT price

B. Yes this is correct, if the cows are follow the same few members then the ranchers would only need to buy it for those FEW members, it costs FAR more to outfit ALL of the herd. the All vs Few did not click for me on the timed run

C. What impact does stress have financially? Does it cost less stress then fences and offset the cost? Who cares about the stress of cows? The idea being driven home is the cost

D. As effective as fences? This would weaken, then why not keep the fences

E. Significant discounts for bulk purchase? No help because he claims they will pay full price

RRE: Regional average wages vary greatly, last year all regions average for FT workers went up, but the country as a whole average wages for FT workers went down.

- more people with lower salaries but higher relative to their regions started working which increased each region but dropped the whole because volume of lower workers with an increase and not many very high earners who went up, probably stayed the same.

A. The last 3 years the country average wage went down. This doesn’t explain why it went up region by region last year, it just tells you that it went down for the whole country 2 more years before this year

B. This AC is intricately worded by the test writers but here is my interpretation: They moved lower wage jobs out of very high income regions so the high income people stayed and by default the average income went up in higher income regions, and the RELATIVELY high earners were moved to lower income regions to save cost, so these regions went up also but to cut costs, they cut wages, so the country average went down even though all regions saw a boost.

C. More people were unemployed last year than previously; ok? How much did they make? This doesn’t indicate how a shift in wages could have happened

D. What was the variance? High for places where it was low, high for places where it was already high? Lower for lower income places? Not enough info to clear up the discrepancy

E. How many employees were in each? And who made what amount? This doesn’t help clear anything up

Flaw: Gifts of cash or objects $100+ = Graft. No officer in my precinct has taken such gifts. Therefore recent accusations of graft in my precinct are unfounded.

- What about other forms of bribery? Information exchanges, early release, no ticket, votes on a board or in an election, Chris Christie bridgegate.

A. Unrepresentative sample, not the flaw

B. Fails to consider other things may be counted as graft, yes. (sort of false dichotomy but not thinking about all possible options)

C. Ad hominem in a positive way/emotional appeal. This would have to conclude something like, “my officers are outstanding citizens, therefore the accusations of graft are untrue”

D. WTF? Corruption came out of nowhere. Don’t know what flaw this is but this is not correct.

E. the conclusion doesn’t contradict the premise. This would be something like my officers have only taken gifts of cash under $100. This is contradicted because it says any gifts of cash and OBJECTS $100 or more

MSS: Critics say pessimistic news reports about the economy hurt it bc people lose confidence. They have experience everyday in the economy. People don’t defer to journalists on things unless they don’t have experience….THEREFORE_ critics are wrong

A. Incorrect; maybe the economy is effected by peoples confidence, but it misses the point that journalism on economy wont have an impact

B. This may be true but this is not the MSS, the evidence in the argument is against the critics statements but there in no conclusion saying their assessment is wrong and that is what we need the right AC to say. That the critics are wrong about the new reports on the economy having an impact on people

C. Wrong, this is the opposite of what we are looking for

D. Yes, News reports about the economy are unlikely to have a significant effect on peoples opinion of the economy. i.e critics are wrong. This lines up as people do not defer on things they do not have direct experience. Does not matter that it doesn’t specify negative v. positive coverage

E. Maybe they do maybe they don’t, but this doenst link up with their reports on the economy not having an impact

15. Strengthen: Most planets orbiting distance stars in an oval. Earth and other planet orbit sun in a circle. Comets orbiting sun in oval were thrown into it with close encounter with planets.

A. Wrong; do we know that the comets are smaller than the planets (we assume based on our knowledge), and do we know that the planets in an oval orbit around distant stars are smaller than the planets they came in contact with?

B. There is no indication that any planet orbiting our sun has been affected by a close encounter with another planet orbiting our sun. Are they all in a circular orbit? It said several, what if there are some that are not circle and they were not affected? This maybe shows that ones that are in circular motion (at least it tries) weren’t affected, but doesn’t strengthen that oval ones were impacted by close encounters

C. Correct; In most cases when a planet has been detected orbiting a distant star, it orbit is oval, in MOST cases when a planets have been found orbiting a distant more than one planet has been found orbiting that star, this would strengthen the claim that SOME of the distant planets in an oval orbit were affected by close encounter with another planet. Almost seems like a NA

D. doesnt strengthen, we already know that many (some) were thrown into oval orbit by encounters with planets, so what about other objects?

E. This seems to weaken the argument

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe C is also wrong because it is not descriptively accurate. I do not believe it implicitly denies that someone becomes a criminal solely in virtue of having committed a crime, but actually explicitly denies it in the conclusion of the argument.

#help

Is the proctor visible on screen during the exam? How is the format compared to the digital PT's offered through 7sage?

This was something I struggled with as well. Something at the was an AH-HA moment for me and helped me turn the corner in my studies was when I began reviewing all the common flaws everyday prior to attempting more questions. There are about 19-21 or so. JY has a section in the CC on them and you can also google common LSAT flaws. Once I memorized them I began doing the questions differently, I would ask which flaw was committed here before going into the AC's. I would usually be able to easily eliminate wrong AC's based on what flaw was committed and it was much easier to pinpoint the right answer. It also helped me to write out what flaw they were talking about in all the wrong AC. Memorizing the flaws was huge for me! Hope this helps.