If B wasn't there, I may have gotten this one wrong. I would usually glance over D, but B made me realize that some people are willing to just stick it out as opposed to going and getting the medicine they need.

THIRDDDDD COMMMMMEEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNTTTTTTTTTTT

I got it right, but that double negative made me take way longer than I should have

Bernard annoys me, lol

I think A is a good answer choice, but B definitely weakens the question the MOST

I'm not mad, just disappointed. lol

E says: someone slightly below "poses NO danger to the public."

Miguel's never says that anyone slightly under a 0.08 BAC poses NO danger; he just says that we need to focus on those who are over double the legal limit because those are the ones that pose the greatest risk to drivers.

I'm by no means an expert, but that's just how I read it.

I know you can't argue with the all-knowing LSAC, but this seems like it relies on the assumption that only Indians eat Indian curry.

It's a little bit tricky, but I feel like A just looks like a lower threshold to cross.

I got it wrong too, so maybe it's just confirmation bias now that I know the correct answer.

I'll be honest, I only said B because I didn't know what untenable meant... lol

Haha, to be fair, the wording on this question had me scratching my head for a long time

To me, it seems like that's counter to what the argument is saying. The argument is saying it is more important to test cleaning products, whereas E is saying it is more important to test medicine than nonmedicines.

Agreed

I was able to get this question right during my review by using the following lawgic:

Trauma --> /PTSD --> higher cortisol

But then I read B as saying:

Higher cortisol --> /PTSD

Clearly this flows backwards.

But the explanation says that it's because a sub group is ignored. Could someone tell me if I just got lucky with the lawgic, or does that work too?

I figured it out. "If" coming in the second half of the clause kind of confused me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but C basically says if C, then A or A only comes into play if C happens. We know A must happen for C to happen, so A can not be dependent on C happening, as shown by if coming before C.

To me, C is appealing because it flows in the same direction that the stim flows in. Why is considered as flowing backwards once we get into lawgic? It still seems like it's A --> C

Nonetheless, I still see why E is correct, but how can I avoid falling for this trick in the future?

You're allowed to skip it...

In my experience, it's been helpful to skip around (or skip entirely) videos that include concepts I already understand.

This question ends with “However, x (we will fund the department), but it seems more natural — given the answer — for it to say “therefore x (we will fund the department). Is this something common in LSAT writing? I haven’t seen any other questions do this.

Edit: Question was asked and answered on this thread already.