PT14.S4.Q13 - "Addiction" has been defined as dependence on

BigJay20

I’ve spent 40mins on this question. Can someone please help me to see if I’m making sense. At this point, I’m googling everyday vocabulary I come across in LSAT cuz this test will make you question your understanding of words you use everyday. The whole stimulus has me confused so I attempted to explain it by anaology. Here we go:

Fashion insiders have defined a supermodel as a highly paid, Instagram model.

Ok, but these two do not go hand in hand so what’s the tea?

A 90s model can be highly paid-doesn’t make her an instagram model.

Correspondingly, you can be an instagram model and not be highly paid.

This definition then is wrong.

If the definition is wrong, does it mean we're trying to argue that both go together?

Whoa! Why such a hasty conclusion?

For such a conclusion to hold means there has been some kind of violation in defining what a supermodel is. It requires you to be highly paid, but if the author is concluding on the relevance example by 90s models, then it depends on the assumption that the definition requirements have been violated.

a. 90s models were never instagram models. For NA, I tend to steer away from absolutes but here, if this is true then the conclusion isn’t wrong. Why? Because we’ve covered what it takes to be considered a supermodel. So it’s not the assumption. I honestly don’t know how I’ll be able to rule this out under time constraints.

b. 90s often become instagram models. So? Often? How often? Even if very often, do we know about their instagram affiliation?

c. 90’s models who are highly paid and IG models. If i’m violating the premise here by saying these highly paid models were also instagram girls, this assumption supports my contention that the meaning of supermodel is wrong. If we negate this, 90s models who are highly paid are not IG models. Baby the conclusion isn't wrong then-which wrecks the arguement.

d. 90’s models who are instagram models are highly paid models. This is reversed.

e. Throw this answer in the trash. It’s wrong in all forms.

While you're here, drop me some good luck and positivity. I've been at this for a year and I still don't see the light. My entire life savings for 11 years is almost all gone because I decided to devote my all to this.

_sa_2020

https://testmaxprep.com/lsat/community/100001278-pt-14-s4-q13

_sa_2020

thought this was a fine explanation - hope it helps!

_sa_2020

c: NOT (Addiction -> Dependence & Abuse)
p: cancer patients: dependence & /abuse

in order to prove C (that it's not the case that addiction leads to d & abuse), we need to show one case that's addiction and NOT Dependence or NOT Abuse or NOT both

cancer patient example shows us an example of dependence and /abuse. in order for this to example to be relevant, need to tie it back to conclusion, i.e. addiction, which answer (C) gets at.

_sa_2020

i think understanding the following would be helpful

to prove this:
NOT (Addiction -> Dependence & Abuse)

show an instance of this:
addiction and NOT (D or A or both)

BigJay20

Thank you, thank you