Paradox | LSAT Logical Reasoning

[@JonesAlex2]

Thank you for this series! So many prep companies only release teasers and keep all their useful content hidden behind paywalls. Kudos to LSAT Lab for providing this great resource for free. Keep it up!

[@TerryCato]

I was also confused with the French Painter v. Sculpturers paradox, but I finally get it, after watching this video like 3x... thank you! :)

[@jedidiahelijah6739]

instablaster

[@lamarcuusbuckner7156]

This is mind blowing because I still don't get it...

[@MB-gd6be]

@@lamarcuusbuckner7156 " $ Unsponsored" Paintings > "$ Unsponsored sculptures" unsponsored Paintings produced More Than Sculptures.

[@MB-gd6be]

@@lamarcuusbuckner7156 "$Paid unsponsored Paintings > "$Paid unsponsored sculptures".

[@jakhongirabdurakhmonov7876]

Great job! I am fond of expectations vs actual result tactic and of incorrect choice types. Application process is also priceless!

[@EytanCohen-js4ku]

For the Australian wool question: Answer C does not specify wool, it only says "certain products"? We would be making an assumption if we were to assign wool to that phrasing? Also- how is the scope of answer C any different than that of answer D, which you said was 'half scope'?

[@colestubing3424]

my problem with the french academy one is I would have figured that more financial support would allow for increased innovation. How is that not the case?

[@elarael6045]

On the question about Australian sheep farmers, the narrator says answer choice A is wrong because it's out of scope, because of the time frame (1840-1860 =/= late 1800s), but isn't it also irrelevant because it says that the reason this family did not enjoy much profit is that the prices of wool sold wholesale DOMESTICALLY did not increase enough to keep up with the inflation of basic goods? We aren't talking about the domestic sale of wool - we're talking about the international sale of it. So it seems irrelevant to me. Am I the only one who got hung up on that? Please tell me I'm not lol

[@LSATLab]

You are not. :) I agree, the version of (A) we would like is that "during middle of the 1800s, prices in general in Australia rose faster than did the wholesale price of wool sold internationally"

[@elarael6045]

@@LSATLab thank you! I just wanted to make sure I fully understood :)

[@vinbaskins3815]

Does this fall under the assumption category or the inference one?

[@LSATLab]

We don't really like to put it any family. We hate having it out on its own, but it's just a black sheep. We're never reading arguments on Paradox, so it can't be in the Assumption / Function families. But we're not being asked to pick the most derivable answer, so it doesn't belong in the Inference Family. Its closest cousins are Strengthen and Weaken, because for all three the question stem is asking, "Which answer, if you accept it as true, would have the most impact?" For all three causality and comparisons are much, much more common than conditional logic. For all three we might use a little common sense / outside knowledge in terms of how we explain the correct answer to ourselves. And for all three, the correct answers will vary a lot in terms of how convincing they are (sometimes they'll feel very convincing, and other times they'll feel like they merely suggest an idea but that answer still wins out over the others because the others do nothing or go the opposite direction).

[@dazeelikethiss]

I agree with Kyle. I am also confused how the answer is not A.

[@LSATLab]

Hey, there. Remember, they tell us that the academy *discouraged* innovation. So even if the academy gave painters more money than sculptors, no one was being given money with the instructions to "go innovate". The academy was subsidizing them, but was discouraging innovation. For painters to take the academy's money and make innovative stuff is a slap in the face to the academy's wishes. Does that make sense?

[@nadeempatel6575]

I feel like the Australian question is a tad unfair.Just because the prices went down for those goods, doesn’t necessarily mean the income you made from those goods went down. For example, when Rockefeller revolutionized the oil industry, the prices for oil went down, yet his profits skyrocketed. It was his ability to get the price lower which allowed his income to go up from the sale of the good.

[@ButtonPusher1997]

I don’t understand the French academy question. My question is why wouldn’t a be the answer choice. If French academy gave more money to painting wouldnt that explain the innovation for it? Because they are driven to get money from the academy and that’s why they are innovative? I don’t see why it would be the other way around.

[@LSATLab]

Hey, Kyle. Sorry your question slipped through the cracks. Remember, they tell us that the academy *discouraged* innovation. So even if the academy gave painters more money than sculptors, no one was being given money with the instructions to "go innovate". The academy was subsidizing them, but was discouraging innovation. For painters to take the academy's money and make innovative stuff is a slap in the face to the academy's wishes. Does that make sense?

[@ButtonPusher1997]

@@LSATLab yesssss. Thank you so much