I made a mistake identifying the core. I initially thought the first sentence was background info, and the core went like: So once we tap into this source of creativity -> Many previously unsolved problems will be solvable I thought the correct answer (E) was questioning a premise, so crossed it ...

So I would typically use conditional logic to see this one if I were taking this LSAT. I'd notate the stimulus in the following way: SGD some FT SGD some ~FT SGD ---> ~IWC I took "significant number" to mean most, so diagrammed your second premise as: SGD Most ~FT. So is "signific...

I was down to (A) and (C). I see that the correct answer (C) is supported by lines 44-49 + the fact in the beginning of the passage that anarchists believe they don't have a moral duty to obey gov. laws (14-15). However, I like (A). Is it wrong because it's too far of a logical leap to say that peop...

So we are to take the "comparable" in the passage to mean that the two shoppers bought exactly the same number of items, and that is why (B) is out?

Definitely makes sense. Just want to make sure this idea of mutually exclusive pairs (i.e. N/V) is exclusive to closed binary games, and has no bearing on open games, correct? I don't think too many of the worked out solutions usually notate this inference on the "Out" side; is it a good i...

Doing this game real-time, I skipped over this question because I thought I missed some big inference about one element that must be in. When I went back to it, I used the orientation question (#12) to eliminate answer choices (b),(c),(d) since the answer to #12 did not have G,N,V in (I don't know h...

I'm always thinking of numerical distributions whenever I encounter a closed binary game now, but I am having trouble figuring out when it's worth the time to make these these inferences up front during setup. Like for this game it was useless coming up with the numerical distributions for botanists...

When you answer these kinds of questions (synthesis question?) that refer directly to certain lines, is it sufficient to just look at those lines, or the last sentence in this case to evaluate the answer choices that best strengthens? Or is it ideal to kind of skim from the beginning of the last par...

I'm still not sure why (A) is incorrect? (E) is obviously the best answer between the two...but are you saying the (A) is too narrow in scope? I mean, I think (A) fits the description of "The Ballad of the Brown Girl" as described in the passage

Can someone give me a solid reason to rule out E?
I have a feeling this is one of those 'generic' incorrect answers...Does it have to do with the passage making a correlation containing averages, and the individual is not the issue?

I apologize in advance if this topic has been addressed elsewhere. What approach--reading passage first or read question stem first for Logical Reasoning--does Manhattan advocate? I would think reading the question first allows you to have more focused purpose when reading passage. While the current...

What is the correct way to negate answer choice D? Is it: "Moral codes...have [not] arisen within some civilized societies" or "Moral codes...have arisen within [no] civilized societies"? The first negation doesn't destroy argument so I'm assuming is correct way to negate. Is the...

What do you guys think of notating conditionals directly under the slots? So for M3 --> L6, I would put M under slot 3 and draw arrow towards 6 with L under it. Just trying to see if others do this and if it's a good idea. I know in some cases notating underneath isn't viable like Z1--> L-O......

Those 2 frames were genius! I have a habit of always writing the contrapositive for conditionals, so when I put down the contrapositives for the main 2 conditionals, I ended up confusing myself and wasn't able to clearly see the H-G & G-H sort of biconditional relationship going on. How come you...

I got tripped up on expressing the argument conclusion as:

Reading Assignments + ~WHR ---> ~HG,

Why didn't you add the "given several reading assignments" as part of the sufficient condition in the conclusion?

Thanks in advance.

Yes! Thanks!

In the Manhattan book it says, "So, the argument assumes that if there are no LD, then there are no SN, right?" It then expresses the premise as a conditional: ~LD --> ~SN. First off, when I read the premise I never even considered this to be making a conditional relationship. I'm guess...

Thanks that makes sense. I wanted to ask how exactly does the 180 test taker actually setup a generic binary/in-out game? Like does he/she just take a look at the conditions and start with the logic chain, or does he/she write out all the conditionals and contrapositives before beginning the chain? ...

This problem was harder for me because I struggle with Arguments that contain quantity statements (all, some), and I easily get tripped up proportions. I was trying to fit in some numbers and I don't get how (C) is the right response. If the first censor denied 50 %, and the second censor denied 25%...

After learning Manhattan's logic chain method, I've been practicing doing binary/in-out games for a little bit. While most of the time the logic chain is invaluable, I firmly believe there are some games that do not deserve a logic chain. The notorious "CD" game of PT31 is a prime example ...