This is my first question I've gotten right in these drills. I suck at these lol
I get most of my LSAT LR drills correct (usually except for the hardest difficulty) and I find myself overthinking those really hard questions because I am trying to practice a methodology and skill instead of relying on my intuition, that gets the easier/medium/hard questions right. I'm just wondering what my approach should be.
The word presupposes means to quite literally suppose beforehand or to imply to know beforehand. To presuppose the truth of the conclusion beforehand is to take the conclusion as true prior to the introduction of the premises or completely disregards the premises as the conclusion is already presupposed or implied to be known as true before any logical reasoning. Like the king of france is bald, you presupposed there was a king of france to begin with.
I would first ask where are the -10 mainly at in an LR section. If it is at the end, it just means that you have the general fundamentals but then those last 10 require more scrutiny and being more critical of answer choices and the stimulus.
For this question, we're asking how to justify the conclusion that we ought to radically modify agricultural techniques as our means of sustaining economic growth because economic growth increases agricultural production. Based on this conclusion alone, we need to ask ourselves: Why is modifying agricultural techniques our only choice? Why aren't their other means of sustaining growth by increasing agricultural production? There's no reasoning in the stimulus to answer this question. We only get this explanation of this one choice that abandoning conventional agriculture increases production without reducing biodiversity. Why is reducing biodiversity even important? Idk. We're not told. But that is the main disconnect here that we need to find to most justify the economist's reasoning. And that is what B does. E (The second most selected answer) is incorrect because it's this conditional that is kinda foundationless. It says essentially that we get the best agricultural production through only radically modifying agricultural techniques. Based on what? The economist never alludes to this method being better on the basis of results. The argument never references results and how much agricultural production we need to increase to sustain economic growth.
Like most people on this question, I was able to narrow my ACs down to B and C. Like most people, as well, I thought answer choice was very appealing based on the idea that details of work records and negative records of firing John would be "accurate" and "complete", but thinking critically of that answer choice and trying to personalize it, if someone said something bad about you, do we automatically assume it is accurate, let alone complete? That alone made me realize that answer choice C (which is very obvious in saying why the investment choice was not responsible) was the correct one.
Lmk of any questions
I think im getting it!
FINALLY got this one right
I am a little thrown off with the first sentence of the stimulus. Is there a typo with the apostrophe in "animal's" or am I just reading it incorrectly?
I still don't understand how E is a flaw in the reasoning when I think it is purely just descriptive of what the prosecution is saying.
Mightve been the hardest lsat passage of all time
My brain could not comprehend this stimulus