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.
You kinda pointed out ur own assumption, which is great! You assumed that fossils indicate age. The important key is to stay attached to the stimulus. Imagine you dont know anything about fossils except the broad idea they are old bones. THAT'S IT. You don't know their purpose. Then there is this gap in the argument of the expert of how do we trust what the fossils are saying. What if they didn't tell us the relevant age of the birds that existed? This premise fully falls apart naturally. C is wrong because so what if knowledge isn't complete. Like so what if we don't know what dromeosaurs eat. It's not necessary to the expert's argumentation, it would definitely strengthen it, but the argument wouldn't fall apart.
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.
The argument isn't saying that the politician has to respond to every argument, the argument is saying that the TECHNIQUES do have to respond to every argument, otherwise it casts doubt on the blah blah blah. I think the assumption you're making just does not exist. Because a technique being used is responding to something, that something has to exist and be addressed in the first place. Also, if the technique is not addressing every argument from the opposition, what is the technique doing? That's the answer.
Tbh, I didn't make that connection in my head either reading the stimulus. POE was def the route for this question. I ruled out A based on this comparative of the evaluation which didn't really make any sense, like we don't know the connection between different types of evaluation and quality of work. C is wrong because this is ridiculous that nobody can produce higher quality work than freelance writers. D is wrong because similar to C, it's an extreme conclusion. E is wrong, but albeit enticing, because it's this statement that is not really connected to the stimulus at all. Like based on what are you saying that some workers produce high-quality work? You have no idea. B at least says that evaluation will produce high-quality work which is a causal logical relationship that is vividly described in 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
Yeah, I was going to say that your second reasoning for why B is wrong is the most important reason. We are talking about preventing spreading SPECIFICALLY from runoff water. Sure what if he was preventing spreading of the pesticide through method A. Okay... do we know how if Method A deals with prevention of pesticide spreading through running water? No. That alone is enough for why B is wrong
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
the stimulus does not bind the plesiosaurs to be in the southern half, it just says that they can swim in water. Water could exist north too
So, watching the Blind Review videos from the syllabus, the Wrong Answer journal is meant to be a justification journal. How can you justify the right answer as well as how can you justify that the wrong answers are wrong?
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?
In the simplest explanation, it's just skimming the words of the AC and seeing how well it matches the pattern of the stimulus. Should take less than 10 seconds per AC.
I think im getting it!
Not necessarily. The exemplary record proves Franklin's eligibility not reception of the award.
FINALLY got this one right
i feel you
It happened to me last section before this one. A huge gamechanger was really understand Premise and Conclusion because that is the foundation of every single question. Rewatch the videos!!
This is my first question I've gotten right in these drills. I suck at these lol
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.