Can someone go into a more in-depth explanation of correct answer choice A? Is it saying that there is NO positive correlation because smokers who do not drink CB are more likely to develop HD than smokers who do drink CB, that CB is really much less correlated with HD than originally thought. From ...

Correct Answer Choice (A) is still confusing me. Negating it would be: "Large-scale gov't projects NEVER enhance the welfare of society." That is completely in line with the conclusion: "referendum [through large scale gov't projects] diminish welfare" "Never enhancing"...

OR could it be that (B) is wrong because the purpose of the author's premise: "he has taken contributions...." is to support the conclusion, NOT the proposal. However, I still think that since the premise does nothing to support the proposal, that would constitute as "inadequate"...

If (B) said: (B) provides an inadequate argument for rejecting a proposal Then, yes, we could probably pick this, thinking that 'inadequate argument' was a placeholder for the 'attacking the person' logic flaw. However, this answer is saying that our author's conclusion 'rejects a proposal' (which ...

I was wondering if (C) undermines the premise: organic factors affect mental illness symptoms. We are also given the effect: variations in mental illness symptoms Conclusion: variations in organic factors Wouldn't this be a valid argument since the premise explicitly gives us a causal relationship b...

Could a Geek go over this problem top to bottom? I have a hard time seeing how (D) is correct especially since it seems to be the opposite: the editor's argument explicitly deals with reader's response to ads in the magazine. The response to this seeing the ads within magazine articles is the loss o...

But there is a major flaw with answer choice D: It requires you to assume that it's referring to alternative medicine!!!!!!!!! Really, this answer choice could be referring to ANY KIND OF MEDICINE. maybe there is a third, fourth, or fifth school of medicine. That's why I chose C, which explicitly me...

17. (D) Question type: Assumption The argument concludes that it is possible to have knowledge of moral rights even if a society does not have an explicit expression for "moral rights." As evidence, the author compares the situation to that of a person who harvests and studies a tree wit...

Does lines 24-25 "This transplanted oral heritage simply embraced new subject matter or new forms of Western discourse directly support answer choice (C)? new forms of Western discourse = other oral storytelling forms? ....unless of course Western discourse refers to the way Westerners communic...

In order to judge the conclusion's truth value, you would need to fill in these blanks: Per 100 caffeine drinkers, ________ get heart disease vs. Per 100 non-caffeine drinkers, _______ get heart disease. If the conclusion is correct, that 1st blank will have a higher number than the 2nd one. But (A...

Could someone please notate this using conditional reasoning? I'm having a hard time visually seeing the logic behind it. Thanks!

Hi Moderators, Thanks for such a thorough lesson on "some, most, etc." I still had something that was bugging me: particularly, the understanding of the word "few" vs. "some" So does "few" along with "rarely" ALWAYS refer to less than half of the tim...

I have a question: I originally tried to find an answer that was more along the lines of: "Uniformity of speed makes highways safer than does any increase in speed make it more dangerous ." Is this bolded part the same as what (B) gives us : " ....safer than does low average speed? I ...

Hey all, I think I have a more intuitive way to grasp this problem. I think (A) is the assumption between the Premises and the Sub-Conclusion . Look at it this way: Premise: Academic institutions are using CA to measure quality of research Sub-Conclusion: Since they want to maximize citation counts,...

Hi, I was confused why the answer isn't (A). (A) seems to just be a restatement of the editorialist's final statement: The stimulus follows as such: Some people hold this view: Areas not frequented by WU --> installations unnecessary Editorialist's view: Installations made --> Frequented by WU...

Hey all, Thanks for the responses so far. When I was solving this question, I initially looked for the contrapositive of the the rule statement in the stimulus which led me to suspect that the correct answer would follow along the lines of: "The nucleomorph are the remains of an engulfed organi...

I correctly picked C as the answer for this question. but I'm wondering why A is wrong. The stimulus says - Serum cholestrol levels rise proportionately to increased cholestrol and fat consumption" so then why can't the threshold be lowered by lowering the dietary consumption of cholestrol and...

Hey all, I completely understand why C is the correct answer. However, I am still confused on why (B) is wrong... My line of thinking is this: Regardless of whether localized skin irritations are characteristic of "tuberculosis as a disease" or through "testing," the point is tha...

Hey LSAT Geeks, I just wanted to confirm my understanding on this problem. The first sentence of the stimulus is an "IF" statement, thereby isn't absolutely true. That is why we can basically disregard it in its entirety? Only the second statement about babies must be taken to be a fact. H...

Wow. I read all of the above and I think I am even more confused now. Many people had various ways (some questionable) but I wanted to run through this one last time to clear this up for any others out there who are still struggling to understand answer choice B from answer choice C. We'll skip Arno...