This is a strengthen question and apparently the answer is teen accidents rose in areas around the town while declining in this town.

This goes either way. It can actually weaken the argument in that those students are leaving gainsville, providing an alternate cause for the decrease in accidents, marching the rise in accidents in immediately surrounding areas.

This is a very silly question and this answer is not a definite strengthener! I actually have to really delude myself into buying yhe strengthening angle, and I like occams razor.

"

https://www.reddit.com/r/LSAT/comments/9na6so/lsat_question/

She tries again here:

"Editorial: Teenagers tend to wake up around 8:00 A.M., the time when they stop releasing melatonin, and are sleepy if made to wake up earlier. Since sleepiness can impair driving ability, car accidents involving teenagers driving to school could be reduced if the school day began later than 8:00 A.M. Indeed, when the schedule for Granville's high school was changed so that school began at 8:30 A.M. rather than earlier, the overall number of car accidents involving teenage drivers in Granville declined.

This is a strengthen question and apparently the answer is teen accidents rose in areas around the town while declining in this town.

People are saying this is the answer (strengthens) because it eliminates the possibility that accidents rose everywhere. I could equally say it weakens it. In both cases, you'd have to ask "why do you think that?" And in both cases, a response can be given. Both the strengthen approach and weaken approach seem equal in my eyes. Watch:

Strengthen: eliminates possibility that the decrease occurred everywhere. Why does that strengthen it? Well now we know with better certainty that the drop was due to the later start!!! ASSUMPTION: OTHER TOWNS DIDN'T IMPLEMENT LATER START.

Weaken: eliminates the possibility that the decrease occurred everywhere. Why does that weaken it? Well the areas around the town might have implemented later start too!!! ASSUMPTION: OTHER TOWNS IMPLEMENTED LATER START

From what I'm seeing, people seem to think the first is not making an assumption, and I can see why because the assumption is in disguise as a lack of action where the weaken one is a positive action. But both are assumptions sorry!

Hope this better explains what I'm thinking! If you could try to follow my reasoning here and address my words that would be great!! And leave the insults at the door "

https://www.reddit.com/r/LSAT/comments/9nk2om/khan_academy_question_different/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4104266&forum_id=2#37008794)

the time when they stop releasing melatonin, and are

sleepy if made to wake up earlier. Since sleepiness

can impair driving ability, car accidents involving

teenagers driving to school could be reduced if the

school day began later than 8:00 A.M. Indeed, when

the schedule for Granville’s high school was changed

so that school began at 8:30 A.M. rather than earlier,

the overall number of car accidents involving teenage

drivers in Granville declined.

Which one of the following, if true, provides the most

support for the argument in the editorial?

(A)

Teenagers start releasing melatonin later at night and

stop releasing it later in the morning than do young

children.

(B)

Sleepy teenagers are tardy for school more

frequently than teenagers who are well rested when

the school day begins.

(C)

Teenagers who work at jobs during the day spend

more time driving than do teenagers who attend

high school during the day.

(D)

Many of the car accidents involving teenage drivers

in Granville occurred in the evening rather than in

the morning.

(E)

Car accidents involving teenage drivers rose in the

region surrounding Granville during the time they

declined in Granville.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4104266&forum_id=2#37008960)

even if you didn’t realize the direct connection, the other options are so bad youd arrive at E through elimination if not retarded.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4104266&forum_id=2#37009018)

ur a bort treasure

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4104266&forum_id=2#37009606)

this is an easy ass question

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4104266&forum_id=2#37008977)

edit: someone else posted it and lol the redditor is dumber than i thought

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4104266&forum_id=2#37008968)

Strengthen: eliminates possibility that the decrease occurred everywhere. Why does that strengthen it? Well now we know with better certainty that the drop was due to the later start!!! ASSUMPTION: OTHER TOWNS DIDN'T IMPLEMENT LATER START.

Weaken: eliminates the possibility that the decrease occurred everywhere. Why does that weaken it? Well the areas around the town might have implemented later start too!!! ASSUMPTION: OTHER TOWNS IMPLEMENTED LATER START

From what I'm seeing, people seem to think the first is not making an assumption, and I can see why because the assumption is in disguise as a lack of action where the weaken one is a positive action. But both are assumptions sorry!"

we need to get this chick a burka and a muslim husband so she never leaves the house and endangers other human beings

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4104266&forum_id=2#37009021)

because that's the mistake she's making, she's asserting "no statement about lack of X means you're assuming lack of X" is equivalent to "no statement about lack of X means X could be true"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4104266&forum_id=2#37009403)

"P.s. my pts are consistently above 171 if that makes anyone read my comments more carefully. Unless you're above 175 then tear me apart lol"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4104266&forum_id=2#37009031)

i guess we just ASSUME there isn’t a flying spaghetti monster, right?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4104266&forum_id=2#37009121)

So you're saying it's strengthens because it defends against criticism.

Here is what you're saying which is missing the point:

Objector: what if around the town, the teen accidents also decreased. How do you know it's not a universal thing?

Author: the teen accidents around the town actually increased..

Objector: oh ok.

To you, this strengthens the argument. You're wrong, because it could go like this:

Objector: what if teen accidents around the town increased at the same time the towns teen sccidents decreased?

Author: the accidents around the town actually decreased.

Objector: oh ok

There is ZERO difference between these situation as much as you want to think there is.

I think you and almost everyone else has a very narrow way of looking at the world, and something attracts you about the answer given on the lsat, and i get what it is: people like seeing disparity. It's biased but it's human nature.

This will probably affect you as a lawyer, but there are only a few good ones, so it makes sense. I'd rather not get your help any more because it looks like I'm helping you whether you realize it or not. It's not a bad thing, I just need to study now.

permalinkembedsaveparentreportgive goldreply

[–]lsatstudent 1 point 49 minutes ago*

Got it - I'm the one who's narrow minded, not you. I've gotten multiple perfect LR sections on real LSATs and am just trying to share with you the logic of this test.

I'm willing to engage with your objection, but I honestly don't understand your point here:

"Objector: what if teen accidents around the town increased at the same time the towns teen sccidents decreased?

Author: the accidents around the town actually decreased.

Objector: oh ok"

How would that possibly be an objection to the argument? Why would the objector make that point - it helps the author's argument. EDIT: Oh are you trying to call back to the theory that the teens moved out? I think that was already explained in the other thread. Pointing out that teen accidents around Granville increased at the same time Granville's accidents decreased does not suggest that the teens moved out.

I don't understand the last couple of points you are raising about people liking to see disparity, bias etc. These last few lines seem incoherent. (Strongly suggests that english isn't your first language.) In any case, you clearly think you have the better view. I disagree, but there is no point in engaging anymore.

permalinkembedsaveparenteditdisable inbox repliesdeletereply

[–]Dianapoops[S] 1 point 9 minutes ago

You seem not to understand a lot. Perhaps you're better at verbal reasoning, but we can't do that here.

I had a feeling you'd experience difficulty with the second situation. Give it time, it requires pure objectivity.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4104266&forum_id=2#37009170)

this question is tricky for smartmos like me and the reddit poster bc the answer is too simple. much more information is presented in the prompt than is actually needed to answer the question and that makes it confusing

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4104266&forum_id=2#37009421)

In both cases, you'd have to ask "why do you think that?"

In both cases, you'd have to ask "why do you think that?"

In both cases, you'd have to ask "why do you think that?"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4104266&forum_id=2#37009581)

It's a non sequitur.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4104266&forum_id=2#37009593)

Taking more than 60 seconds to read, answer E, and move on = killself

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4104266&forum_id=2#37010391)

Lol check this one out

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4104266&forum_id=2#37021869)

Motor oil serves to lubricate engines and thus retard

engine wear. A study was conducted to assess the

effectiveness of various brands of motor oil by using them

in taxicabs over a 6,000-mile test period. All the oils did

equally well in retarding wear on pistons and cylinders, the

relevant parts of the engine. Hence, cheaper brands of oil

are the best buys.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the

argument?

(A)

Cheaper brands of motor oil are often used by

knowledgeable automobile mechanics for their own

cars.

(B)

Tests other than of the ability to reduce engine wear

also can reliably gauge the quality of motor oil.

(C)

The lubricating properties of all motor oils

deteriorate over time, and the rate of deterioration is

accelerated by heat.

(D)

The engines of some individual cars that have had

their oil changed every 3,000 miles, using only a

certain brand of oil, have lasted an extraordinarily

long time.

(E)

Ability to retard engine wear is not the only property

of motor oil important to the running of an engine.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LSAT/comments/9jemrx/pt_2003_section_3_question_5/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4104266&forum_id=2#37022406)