Correct answer is simpler than what everyone discussed. My process of elimination. Short and long explanations. To clarify before hand, I summarize the entire passage simply as: 'too exclusive' (old law) --> 'too lenient' (Bentham) --> mostly lenient unless the exclusion is reasonable (current...

I read this carefully, and this is my take on why D is wrong. Question asks which is most vulnerable part of the argument. D) attacks the premise itself, not the premise->conclusion link. B) attacks the link itself. Premise: astrological knowledge + math, which are two scientific components, used...

My thought process: A) almost correct; would be correct if it said " sophisticated/advanced ". If animals could do it, so could humans. But it says basic tools, which is not what the scientist is arguing for. C) strengthens instead of weakens; evidence that humans stood upright first befor...

Posting my interpretation in case it helps. Analogy, A boy and a girl being siblings is never a reason why he calls her "sister", because there are many boys that call girls whom they aren't related, "sisters". So A fits this. Since [non-art -- reactions], there can't be [art -- ...

I believe it meant it as implemented 'not by' the recipients.
little accountability - recipients had little or no say in relief planning.

A - directly supported by first two sentences; - [...have forced [b ]relief agencies[/b], communities , ... to reevaluate the ways... ] --> both aid providers & recipients - [ They believe that traditional ways... have proved ineffective --> the 3 listed above believe it's ineffective --&g...

I also thought C was the right answer. But here is my thinking to eliminate it.. since let's always give the benefit of the doubt, that LSAT test creators really go through each question more than most people else ever would. :P C is wrong the same way A and E is wrong. --- Why were they easily elim...

Ahh.. I think I got it. A vs B A) explains the 'top producer' part. So if you identified the 'what needs support' as 'why are Chinese-settlers lands top producers', then A looks like the right answer. But that's not what needs support. The actual question is asking for 'why MUST we study Chinese-set...

I didn't know what posited meant, so it was way harder than it actually was. Posited: assume it's true. How I simplified it: Some people: object is real only if it's [posited] in best scientific theories. Author: No no, most scientific theories has [posited] objects, and these objects are [posited] ...

I dug into this question way too much. Hope this helps others. Tldr: Premise: - A says Econ. - B says psych. - Econ + psych coexist in at least one explanation. Answer/required assumption (see **): - [A says no psych]. [B says no econ]. - aka, [A says econ] + [event has econ & psych] + [A is wro...

I initially incorrectly chose A, so here is my identifying errors: ethicist: giving placebos just for psychological is ethically questionable. 1. If the paragraph said "placebos is questionable medical treatment" instead of "questionable ethically", then it makes sense. But the e...

Struggled with this. "public funds should support art" was so problematic for me. I crossed out D. I at first agreed with the above poster: the necessary should be "public funds should support something that produces something great", or "some art". But this is an expli...

Linguists' debate: "language correspondent & consistent" VS "language is conventions & true if no alternative" (2nd paragraph) Debate regarding scientific language: "it considers everything, so it's the former" VS "no, its not guaranteed" (3rd) + autho...

I actually think E) says "harm others" -> morally wrong, because "not morally wrong" --> not harm others. --- TLDR; if you replace "moral obligation" with E's definition, the entire passage makes no sense. --- Confusing part for me was that the 2 examples given, w...

E) seems to actually say: "It presents an argument showing that the premises in Charle's argument support an absurd conclusion that he has overlooked" == "If Charle's premises are true, then this other absurd thing would also happen" An example of this is: John: This signature is...

The reasoning for answer choice E lies in the sentence "but we need to to determine whether the changes are warranted, taking into account their price." So before deciding whether impositions are costly, we first need to decide whether the changes are warranted. Also, the changes mentione...

Abbreviated economic activity as EA. So, for my analysis, I broke the EA into three regions -- [mall EA], [community EA], [local EA] And defined [new] as follows: - [new __ EA] means [EA new to the __ ] Premise then becomes: - New mall in community -> new local EA - new mall has large EA [nbsp] [...