Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
daniel.noah.pearlberg
About
- Username
- daniel.noah.pearlberg
- Joined
- Visits
- 194
- Last Active
- Roles
- Member
Comments
-
The different prep companies use different labels for the different categories. I like to think of it like this: For about 99% of the games, your task is either to put things in order (basic linear, pure sequencing), put things in groups (grouping),…
-
The reasoning in the stimulus goes like this: (Premise) Television gave rise to music videos (Conclusion) Anyone who thinks that music videos are an art form should also agree that television gave rise to an art form [since television gave rise to …
-
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "no need to cover all of them"- many arguments contain more than one flaw, but only one of the answer choices will identify a flaw in the argument. Is that what you're asking?
-
No I basically agree with @runiggyrun , I was just pointing out that what the author is failing to address is really central to what's going on in the argument. "remotely associated to a company"- there are probably lots of ways to be remotely asso…
-
The argument is assuming that if the physician's motivations are suspect, then the physician's reasoning in the book is suspect as well. Without this assumption (a very common flawed assumption on the LSAT) the argument falls apart. (D) is just a fa…
-
Haha whoops, sorry about that! Yeah, I think this is a tough question. The conclusion is that the explanation for why we find more impact craters in geologically stable regions must be because those areas have lower rates of destructive geophysical …
-
Premise: Lots of highly skilled workers in Eastern Europe left their jobs, moved to the West. Conclusion: It is likely that the remaining skilled workers in Eastern Europe are in high demand in their home countries. Well, maybe, but the conclusion …
-
Yeah, you have to be careful with flaw questions- many incorrect answer choices describe things that would be flaws if the author of the argument had indeed reasoned in that way, but they are not the correct answer because the author did not in fact…
-
Because the conclusion is that Maria trained hard. Think of that as B. We can arrive at that conclusion if we are given the following two premises: (i) If A then B; (ii) A. Then, if those premises are true, the conclusion B must be true as well. You…
-
The legislature's mandate was to hire 500 investigators. The regulator isn't replying by saying that hiring 500 investigators would have been an insufficient response to the scandal (anyways, it would be strange for the regulator to say that- if hir…
-
(D) would be the correct answer if, instead of telling us about dexterity, it told us that the uprighters had no more free use of their hands than did the non-uprighters. In fact that would be a pretty good weakener, for the stimulus simply tells us…
-
Hmm, isn't it possible that the Uprighters and the Non-Uprighters had the exact same amount of dexterity, and the only difference between them (in terms of their hands) was that the Uprighters had free use of the hands and the Non-Uprighters did not…
-
I haven't watched the video with J.Y.'s explanation, and I too read (D) as meaning that they were the first who did it- but I think that what's wrong with (D) is that "dexterity" is not the same as "free use of the hands". You can have dexterity wit…
-
Here's one way to look at it: If black water comes into the bay only once every two centuries, the conclusion could still be true- when black water last struck two centuries ago, it did not reach last year's intensity.