Your longest question yet

[Dancingbambarina]

Using 2024 book

- [ ] If a flaw in reasoning x, will the answer choices sighting flaw be referring to the SAME flaw? As it’s “a” flaw, not “the” flaw.

- [ ] Can a sub conclusion be irrelevant to the argument completely? Like just a regular irrelevant conclusion. Or because it’s in an lsat stimuli, we should presume it serves as a sub conclusion either for the argument or counter it?

- [ ] Surely reverse answer on page 140 is correct with exchanging many for some

- [ ] Surely Q 7 on page 150 has a causal relationship in. In any event, how do we know the rhodopsin change more with motion? It says “sometimes change because of NORMAL motion.” Why would an increase in NORMAL motion (which would make it NOT normal) necessarily change “sometimes” change shape to “more than sometimes” change shape? How is this an increase / decrease relationship? Is it possibly because sometimes can mean all the time and so the possibility for conditionality implies a proportionality?


Sorry for the lengthiness.

[Dave Killoran]

Some thoughts here:

- [ ] If a flaw in reasoning x, will the answer choices sighting flaw be referring to the SAME flaw? As it’s “a” flaw, not “the” flaw.

LSAT problems can have multiple flaws, and so the test makers can choose any one of those flaws to identify.

- [ ] Can a sub conclusion be irrelevant to the argument completely? Like just a regular irrelevant conclusion. Or because it’s in an lsat stimuli, we should presume it serves as a sub conclusion either for the argument or counter it?

It can be irrelevant, but on LSAT questions it rarely if ever is irrelevant.

- [ ] Surely reverse answer on page 140 is correct with exchanging many for some

If the stimulus is the first statement, then while the second statement is possible, it is not for certain, and so it would be incorrect in a Must question.

- [ ] Surely Q 7 on page 150 has a causal relationship in. In any event, how do we know the rhodopsin change more with motion? It says “sometimes change because of NORMAL motion.” Why would an increase in NORMAL motion (which would make it NOT normal) necessarily change “sometimes” change shape to “more than sometimes” change shape? How is this an increase / decrease relationship? Is it possibly because sometimes can mean all the time and so the possibility for conditionality implies a proportionality?

With questions about specific problems, we have individual threads for each question, and we address those questions there. In this case, we have extensively discussed this question at: viewtopic.php?f=597&t=6355. There are several pages of replies there that should address your question.

Thanks!

[Dancingbambarina]

Thanks so much Dave, but honestly this is not covered. I just don’t understand why “normal” is not taken more seriously in the context of the spectrum naturally being normal —> abnormal ? Why is sometimes change shape due to normal molecular motion immediately create a proportional concept instead ?

Thanks very much

[Dave Killoran]

Thanks so much Dave, but honestly this is not covered. I just don’t understand why “normal” is not taken more seriously in the context of the spectrum naturally being normal —> abnormal ? Why is sometimes change shape due to normal molecular motion immediately create a proportional concept instead ?

Thanks very much

Hi, please post questions related to individual LSAT problems in the specific question thread. That keeps all the relevant information together for each problem.

If you restate your entire question there, then we can post a reply. But there are multiple discussions of the proportionality concept, and you'll want to expand on your question about "normal" because it doesn't entirely make sense to me why it's a problem here. Plus, the problem itself introduces the proportionality idea ("The amount of this molecular motion is directly proportional to the temperature of the retina.") so the more info you can provide about what you are asking, the more it will help us if a reply is required.

Thanks!