Recent Comments

% of those who chose it. Generally anything below 60% is a 5-star

Great response! Truth be told, I did not even hesitate in picking C (prob bc I tend to rush when I can see what's about to be tested) but I can definitely see how others would. I will try & expand on what you already said. Generally is not applied to the risk. The risk is applied to an action that generally occurs. Consider the following (bear with my rough analogy skills):

(Say there is a comparison being drawn between homeowners who own guns and homeowners who own pocketknives in deterring potential intruders)
Pocket knives are less effective against intruders and guns are more effective, but having a gun requires difficulty in putting it away - say, the amount of things to consider such as whether it is loaded or not, the safety being left off, the area it is left in, etc. - whereas having a pocketknife is much easier in putting away. Homeowners who own guns sometimes leave the safety off, and thus pose the greatest safety threat of all.

This is not saying that some of the time this poses the greatest safety threat of all. It is saying all of the time. The safety threat does not imply that homeowners who own guns ALWAYS do this, it is saying the mere chance of them doing this is sufficient for the threat being higher in comparison to owning pocketknives.

I think the difficulty interpreting E correctly comes down to the impact of much more and fails to consider. "Fails to consider" infers a weakening mindset toward the argument. So you should be thinking, "Okay, I need to weaken the argument by only a little bit." So, although I agree with you that it would be much better if it said many more short vacations, rather than a short vacation, it still contributes to a valid weakening of the argument.

For example, say for every long vacation, the units of reduction for psychological exhaustion is 10 units. Now, say the units of reduction for every short vacation is 3. Now, using a reasonable interpretation of several short vacations, say there are 5. And say there are 2 long vacations ("...rather than into one or two long vacations"). 10x2 =20 units for long, compared to 5x3=15 units for short. This would absolutely undermine the argument bc it attacks the assumption that the many short vacations in total would be a greater reduction compared to the few long vacations.

Yes, you can create all sorts of numbers in interpreting the words several and much more, in addition to 1 or 2, but the answer does not need to prove the conclusion false...and that is the key to this answer choice. It simply needs to cast doubt. And it definitely does cast doubt.

I also think you can look at this in the context of a working historical record. There are many beliefs that many different people of a group may have had. But a historical record simply seeks to log them. Now, their admission into the record may constitute other factors to deem them worthy - in comparison to the passage's improved definition of medieval epistemology - but the presence of contradictory beliefs in a historical record of a group of peoples' beliefs does not mean that this is not an accurate representation of the beliefs in the record. It is not necessarily concerned with objective truth or any truth for that matter.

C has to be assumed bc of the timeline given for the tablets: 3300 BC to 3200 BC. If C was not true, and historians generally did not believe that the Sumerians did not create literature earlier than 3300 BC (in other words, that they generally do believe that the Sumerians did create literature earlier than 3300 BC - say, 3400 BC), then the argument has zero legs to stand on. The entire crux of the argument relies on the fact that the historians believe that the developments of the Sumerians occurred during this same timeline, no earlier than 3300 BC, bc if these tablets are to challenge this widely held belief, then this belief better conform to this same timeline.

Great response!

Great response

It actually is worded correctly. All we need to establish for the conclusion to be justified (that PVpp now < Tpp now) is that PVpp back then was NOT ≥ 10x the cost of Tpp now. Let's say PVpp today is $10,000 and Tpp today is $10,001. So this is essentially the conclusion. Now, to get here, we need to show a comparison btwn. PVpp back then and Tpp today... bc what if PVpp back then was just astronomically expensive? So, let's say PVpp back then was $100,000. This means it is 10x the amount it is today - which is given - and < 10x the amount PVpp is today - which allows us to then say that Tpp now is more expensive than PVpp now.

"that impact was far from what it was intended to be", referring to the missionary's impact, describes this unintentional effect.

Im not even kidding, I was gobsmacked when I got this wrong. But glad to see a lot of people did too 🤝

I got this one wrong timed as well. The reason B is correct & D incorrect is bc of the specificity of the relationship that the question attributes to the cattle economy & Zimbabwe population. This relationship is not so much about a general causal/necessary conditional relationship as it is about an environment that is not typically suited for a large population (X) without the cattle economy (Y), just as a desert is not a well-suited environment for extracting water (X) without irrigation/farming to enable this extracting of water (Y). This atypical/enabling distinction is crucial. D, if looked at in this sense, applies a pivot to this understanding. There is not a limiting factor attributable to stadiums - similar to dryness of deserts or composition of Zimbabwe soil - that athletic contests must overcome to occur in these stadiums; this relationship is typical and frequent.

Yes, you are reading too much into this. And this is because of the question type. It is a Wkn. EXC., so answers that provide some sway against the argument do indeed count as valid weakeners! Wkn./Str. q's only require minimal sway against/for the argument, and here D provides some sway against the argument that this average income decrease was due to the mismanagement of the economy by the party in rule in that maybe this decrease was instead due to a demographic issue. A does not provide any sway against the argument because the 8-year average decrease could still have occurred given this initial increase during the 1st year.

Bc vocal displays are not shown in this ex., only visual - the fight over who is tallest.

Is there a list of other LSAT questions similar to this one?

If an objection to an argument, if true, would weaken that argument, then showing that objection is not true strengthens the argument. Consider this. I say I am strong because I just benched 225 lbs. You object, saying, "yeah, well, your spotter probably helped you a lot on the way up. Not impressive." I respond, "I didn't use a spotter." This rejects his objection to my strength claim - the possibility that it was my spotter significantly helping my bench press & not my jacked physique - and thus strengthens my argument that I am indeed strong. Strengtheners and weakeners don't ever have to prove the argument true or false...they just need to add a little bit of sway for/against the argument in question. Hope this helps, albeit 4 years later!

Once you know this is SA territory, C was irrefutably the only sensible answer choice.

Hi, not sure if you still wanted feedback, but the dog conditional isn’t quite the same as the poetry one in the stimulus. The one you created would diagram out to:

Dog→Happy

So, if you’re a dog, what we know must necessarily follow is that you’re happy. All the rules about normal conditionals apply to this statement.

But to make the dog rule the same as the poetry one it would have to say something like this:

“A dog is any mammal that displays some of the good traits of pethood, like happiness, companionship, and loyalty.”

The difference here is that, based on this rule, I know that if you’re a dog then you must be a mammal and you must have at least one (key word some) of the good traits, like happiness. In addition, because of the indicator word any (indicating sufficient), it would be natural and correct in the English language to run it backwards as well: “If you display some of the good traits of pethood, like happiness, companionship, and loyalty, then you are a dog.” This is why Kevin says it’s a biconditional. Hope that helps!

The reason I chose C over B was because I believed C better explained why Freud ruled out fairy tales from his analysis of the uncanny (whatever that means...). Although the first paragraph is a bunch of word mash, my general takeaway was Freud is talking about people becoming overly anxious when reality/literature does not matching their expectation of what should be ordinary or normal. Freud rules out fairy tales from his analysis because there is no expectation of what is normal in a fairy tail. AC C goes further than AC B by making that distinction.

I was in the same boat between A and C. Don't know if this is the correct train of thought, but my way of justifying A over C was looking at the referential phrase: "judges' instructions to juries to ignore information learned outside the courtroom." At face value, these instructions aren't going so far as to not form an opinion (AC C); all the instruction is saying is to ignore outside information (AC A).

Ladies and gentleman, this is what I call a "crashout."

For me, this is one of those questions that I feel could only be solved by PoE under timed constraints, as AC C is ironically totally subjective in and of itself.

(Someone feel free to correct me if you think I’m wrong in my reasoning here) If C is true, and “Our own standard of beauty was strongly influenced by our exposure to works that were considered beautiful in earlier cultures”, I think it’s EXTREMELY valid to interpret that as meaning there is some outside, objective thing which influences standards of beauty throughout the years. But even if we say an interpretation isn’t appropriate, it still quite literally says our standards are strongly influenced by works from earlier cultures.

Our goal here is supposed to be to weaken the conclusion that beauty is not subjective. In the real world we live in, I think most would agree that for something to be “subjective”, it is innate. It is totally down to one’s personal experience and opinion, and not influenced by outside forces. To be influenced by outside forces means that it is no longer subjective. This is, at least, how I would define the word “subjective” as I understand it after having referenced dictionary definitions. If this is where my reasoning ends, C in a vacuum looks like the best wrong AC for what I’m being asked to do.

But if I change the paradigm of my thinking and allow an open mind for someone else’s definition of what “subjective vs objective” can mean, I can make AC C work. If I take C to be true, and I additionally assume that it is possible for a standard to be influenced by something external and still remain subjective, C now works. C takes the premises the argument used to support its conclusion and instead turns them against it.

But this question, like a lot of others I’ve seen in my studying, seems indicative to me of something you’ve got to be aware of at every turn on this test: the LSAT is written by humans as flawed as you or I, and especially given the complexity of language and interpretation, they are ironically sometimes just as subjective as anyone could be in how they write wrong and right ACs. While they abide by their rules the majority of the time, they will sometimes break them as I personally think they have done here. They can require you to make what I would call a totally subjective assumption in order for something like C to fit, just for the sake of making it hard. An additional layer of difficulty on this test is being able to discern what assumptions are reasonable to make, which ones aren’t, and where it’s okay to totally change tack in your interpretation to accommodate someone else’s perspective. You’ve got to be on the balls of your feet with this test and not let it put you on your heels. Rant over, hope this helps someone.

goddam you jamboree!!!!!

i diagramed the stimulus wrong, so i got the question wrong. but i am confused as to why the level tool is a sufficient condition to measure accurately. can someone explain this to me?

We know that all of their new shows last season were police dramas. We know that SOME police dramas WERE popular in recent years (b/c stimulus notes, there are a few). So, it would probably be helpful to know that of those few that were popular, they were not W&W. If the police shows were W&W, then we can’t say that most of the new ones will be canceled this season — what if they had the few police shows that were popular last year? D fills in that gap

baited assumption that having a record of safety = safe.

2 years later & I think there might be a 7sage error because I swear my question also said "most strongly supported". I did BR too & read MSS for a second time...

HELP! I originally chose B because the gap I saw in the argument was that pollution can occur during the process of treatment by the plant, so they will have polluted even if after the sterilization there is no pollution. In blind review, I chose A even though I knew it was flawed, because B also felt wrong. The argument is concerned with addressing pollution after the plant is proposed. So even if as B) says pollution occurs before the plant operation, isn't that irrelevant? That is why I no longer liked B), as it is not focused on pollution during the process of the plant. It even says in the stim "they are concerned that such a facility will pollute the area," not about pollution prior to the plant.

same

Ryan Han was a great help during my LSAT preparation! I worked with Ryan the two weeks leading up to my test date, and he helped refine the work I had already done in the 7-Sage course. His brought a great attitude, excellent knowledge, and a willingness to tailor the sessions for maximum benefit. I ended up with a nine-point increase. My only regret was not working with him sooner.

I also found this aspect a bit confusing initially, until I realized the question I was answering. All Cassie needs to do is raise a counter to Melvin's argument. Weaken questions do not need to provide concrete proof, just evidence to the contrary. Melvin claims that hiring more workers is a prerequisite to reducing work loads, on top of it being very difficult to hire more workers in the first place. Leading to his conclusion that reducing client loads is not feasible. However, what if reducing work loads led to hiring more workers? All answer choice A does is flip this chain of causality, effectively providing an objection to this presumed prerequisite, which is what the writers of this question are looking for. Hope this helps!

I’ve learned that paying close attention to what is relevant to the argument in the stimulus can really make a difference with all question types. For me that framework helped clarify JY’s explanation about what made B wrong and A right moreso than immediately zoning in on B’s usage of the concepts of “excessive spraying” and “slight reduction”.

The argument is saying that using genetically engineered crops is likely to help wildlife populations recover; this is the point the stimulus is driving us toward. A provides us with something that we necessarily HAVE to assume to arrive there. If you negate A so that using genetically engineered crops DON’T cause less harm, then what’s the point of using them at all?

What made B wrong for me, then, was the fact that all we’re told in the stimulus is that “excessive spraying” has harmed wildlife populations, period. Will spraying less help them recover? Who knows, given what we’re told.

How this is not a 5/5 STAR (no pun) question is mind blowing to me

Fell for the trap too.

#help. I understand why A is right but I'm not sure why B is wrong.

I chose B because I interpreted the flaw to lie with the author conflating percentages numbers for populations of different sizes. If there are 100 young voters and 50% of them vote (i.e 50) while 75% of the 28 older voters (i.e 24) vote, the author misrepresents the higher percentage and they can't say that older people vote more often.

Is the reason B is wrong is because the conclusion focuses on likelihood? So the author can still validly argue that the older voters are more "likely" to vote with my example?

I got a minus -8 on this section after 18 months of studying. I'm out. I can't do this. I'm not smart enough. Good luck everyone

To summarize the psychiatrist's hypothesis, they think that spending is not correlated with depression/anxiety. C proposes that spending and depression/anxiety actually are correlated, which weakens the psychiatrist's hypothesis. A, B, and E give examples of no correlation, which strengthen the psychiatrist's hypothesis. D strengthens by verifying the results.

I wasnt so sure about B because the birds hunt during the day light. For me it explained why they both would be more nocturnal (bc the bird will eat em) but not why one be more nocturnal than the other especially considering it hunts during the day only.

i got all the mapping done right but i just didnt understand the stim. Its also so crazy to see that these harder questions are just the basics wrapped around something to throw you off