This was pretty tricky, and I got it right, but I still don’t have a good understanding of what is technically wrong with A. How is answer choice A not directly contradicting one of P’s premises? It must not because it isn’t the right answer choice.

Video link: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-69-section-4-question-15/

L: You philosophers say that linguists don’t understand language, but you haven’t provided evidence of that.

P: You say that “J and I are siblings” means the same thing as “I and J are siblings.” This isn’t true since the word order is different. For two things to be identical, everything must be the same.

What I am looking for: Both make pretty bad arguments (L makes an absence of evidence flaw), but we really only need to undermine P’s reasoning. P is wrong because he misses the point of what it means to “understand language.” The order of the words doesn’t matter necessarily; it’s the total meaning that matters. P assumes that “identical meaning” is influenced by the “physical” placement of the words.

Answer A: To me, this is attacking one of P’s premises directly (and that was one of the reasons I didn’t pick this one). Attacking the premise is technically an OK way to undermine an argument; the real issue is that the LSAT is very good at creating answer choices that SEEM to attack premises, but they really don’t. This one is different in my mind since it flat out contradicts the final independent clause of P's fact pattern. P defines “identical things” as “things having all of the same attributes.” If L responded, “I disagree with your definition since two things can have a few minor differences and be identical [referring to minor differences in physical structure, but identical meaning]” doesn’t this weaken the argument by directly attacking the truth of P's premise?

Answer B: I think this strengthens P’s argument since it provides another way that differences (context) matter.

Answer C: Wtf?

Answer D: This more succinctly hits the main point, and it is a much better answer choice that A. The issue is over “meaning," not the order of the words.

Answer E: More experience? So what?

For question 17, I can't differentiate between D and E. For question 18, I got the correct answer via POE, but I don't know what "merely in a matter of degree" means in answer choice C. Can someone translate what that is talking about? Does it mean "quantitatively?" That seems like a weird definition.

Question 17 essentially wants us to support Maritain using something in Passage A. In Passage B, Maritain thinks that animal communication is a conditional reflex and not conscious intent.

Answer D: I see how this answer supports him. Calling causes females to approach and males to retreat. There is no evidence that the frogs do it in order to rely the calling frog's desire/intent to mate nor influence the other frog's behavior. This seems to suggest it is pretty reflexive.

Answer E: But, doesn't this equally support Maritain? The primates don't adjust their call depending on who is there/rely knowledge. Thus, there appears to be no goal/conscious intent either. Doesn't this also suggest that the primate coos and calls as a reflex when it sees food or predators, respectively?

Hey everyone,

To be honest, I don't exactly know where to begin, so I'll try my best. To start, 7Sage is the best LSAT prep company on this planet for multiple reasons.

First, the people, community, forums, mentors, sages, tutors--EVERYONE--is awesome. On many occasions, I posted questions in the forums, and every time, I received help that was extremely valuable to my prep. The community here is simply the greatest asset for scoring well on the LSAT.

Second, the 7Sage lessons are fantastic. I graduated college with zero background in philosophy and zero background in logic; I started the lessons pretty much with no fundamental understanding of what it means to weaken or strengthen an argument. I didn't know what a sufficient or necessary assumption was (in all honesty, I thought they were the same thing). I had to re-watch many lessons; redo many drill sets; and then do them again! The curriculum was essential for me to grasp the basic fundamentals. Even during my PT stage, watching video explanations for LR, RC, and games were key to improvement. I tried my best to imitate the skills that I saw on these excellent videos.

Third, and certainly not least, @"J.Y. Ping" is the most generous person I've ever met. I became a mentor around September/October of 2015, and around that time, JY emailed me asking me if I was interested in tutoring. Hell yes I was! Who wouldn't want to talk to the "so what?" video guy, himself? We talked for two hours every Wednesday night for about 8 months, and he never charged a dime. Over that time, I not only learned a lot, but I made a great friend. I'm not really sure how to repay him, but I will try somehow.

In short, thanks to everyone at 7Sage; earning my score wouldn't be possible without this site.

Pretty clueless on this one. I narrowed the answer to B or C during the exam, and I couldn't do any better during BR. Turns out, the answer is E :/ Can someone break down all of the answer choices? Even though I got rid of A and D, I'm not convinced that I got rid of them with good reasoning.

Stranger is same age- MOST feel comfortable approaching that stranger. Long term friendship start MOST someone felt comfortable approaching a stranger. Therefore, long term friends probably the same age.

What I am looking for: No clue. I don't really understand the argument with this one. Can any of the diagrams link up (not that it really matters)? JY does it in the videos, but I don't see how the approaching the stranger ideas are the same thing. Here is the video: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-61-section-4-question-24/

I don't understand the correct answer for this one at all. Can someone breakdown why all the wrong ones are correct and D is correct? Here is my breakdown:

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-65-section-3-passage-3-questions/

Answer A: This is what I picked both times, I don’t really see what’s wrong with it. Doesn’t legally requiring something describe US/Canadian law while not legally requiring it parallel Roman law? To me, this is perfect…

Answer B: Roman law didn’t make anything illegal, so this isn’t it.

Answer C: Roman law didn’t distinguish between legality, so this isn’t it.

Answer D: Completely dumbfounded how this could possibly be the answer. Roman law didn’t make blackmail illegal outright. You had to show harm, and THAT made it illegal. I don’t see how this is analogous to Roman law in the slightest…

Answer E: Higher fines? Roman law didn’t have harsher punishment.

I'm not sure about this one, and I'm having a very tough time seeing why the correct answer is correct.

Link: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-35-section-4-question-11/

One way to approach the question "what is real?" is to say that something is real IF AND ONLY IF that thing is posited by the most explanatory powerful theory of the science. Most scientific theories have things posited as real only on theoretical grounds. Therefore, the approach described is flawed.

What I am looking for: This is PSA question, so we need to link up the premise to the conclusion. If something is posited as real only on theoretical grounds, then it isn't a part of the most explanatory powerful theory. That's what I anticipated, but I'm not that confident about it.

Answer A: We don't care about enhancing a theory.

Answer B: This is the correct answer, but I don't really see what it's doing. Doesn't this answer choice assume that there is an overlap between the "most explanatory powerful theory of the science" and "most scientific theories contain only theoretically posited entities?" Why couldn't the "most explanatory powerful theory of the science" be in the group of non-theoretically posited entities (i.e. only in the group of practically posited entities?) That doesn't seem like an unreasonable assumption.

Answer C: I think this is kind of like answer A. We don't care about enhancement of a theory.

Answer D: OK, but this doesn't seem like a sufficient assumption. Plus, are the entities real?

Answer E: I don't think this is it because the author thinks this reasoning is flawed, so this doesn't seem like a sufficient assumption.

February 1997 is the only exam I can't find cheap access to online. It's one of the few exams where I haven't seen any of the games, so I'd like to at least try taking the games section timed. Has anyone been able to find a cheap copy? Amazon.com's price for it is nuts!

Hey guys, I added the other LR section to my PT this week, and I came across this question. It was a complete confidence error, and I felt pretty strong about the answer I picked. In other words, I don't see how A isn't correct nor how B is correct.

Breakdown of stimulus: Since our calendar system is stupid, certain important holidays don't fall on the same day of the week each year. If the last day of the year and the extra day added at the end of the year every 4 years didn't belong to a week, some of these scheduling problems could be fixed.

What I am looking for: We need an answer choice that shows that a scheduling problem would still exist.

Answer A: What's wrong with this? If you anniversary falls on the day that doesn't have a week or on the last day of the year (12/31), doesn't that create a problem during the years with an extra day? Would the extra day be 12/32 or still considered 12/31?

Answer B: I don't see how this would be a problem. Just don't work every 7th day. How does the new schedule create a problem here?

Answer C: So what? They just have to attend a certain number of days of school.

Answer D: So what? This is completely fixed, I think since holidays will be on the same day every year.

Answer E: Why can't you plan ahead with the new schedule?

I was accepted to Harvard this morning!!!!! I couldn't have accomplished this without the awesome community at 7Sage and without JY's fantastic guidance. Thank you :)

For those taking the exam tomorrow, you are going to own it. Know you will own it. Be confident; approach every question with the mindset of "I will get this question correct." Trust yourself.

Tonight, relax. Go see a movie; get a good nights sleep. Tomorrow night, celebrate.

http://www.wsj.com/article_email/lsats-grip-on-law-school-admissions-loosens-1455964203-lMyQjAxMTA2NTI2MjYyMjI5Wj

Interesting article. Part of me does wish the LSAT was more similar to the GRE like offering the LSAT on a rolling basis and making it computer based so results can get back faster. To do that though, I think you'd have to get rid of the games section. As much as the games are "fun" and relatively "easy" points once you fool proof them, it is a useless section that should be replaced with a math section like on the GRE, but that's a totally separate discussion.

Also, many law schools are trying to find ways to combat the declining application problem. Getting rid of the LSAT barrier and accepting the GRE (which far more people take) might cause someone on the margin to decide to apply to law school (and boost revenue numbers via application fees and stuff). It's not that uncommon for people to wake up one day, decide to take the LSAT, and apply to law school (as weird as that sounds); making it easier for people to apply in general by accepting a broader test is just going to encourage those people more I think.

Lastly, LOL at this part: "The entirety of the LSAT was meant to mimic the law school experience..."

Lots of points made in this short video from Bloomberg Law. I agree completely with his viewpoint about the importance of writing and recommending that people should generally avoid pre-law courses in favor of having a more well-rounded focus in undergrad.

Nevertheless, I think it's a little harder to justify making law school 4 years due to the extra monetary/time costs and the perception of many law school students who felt that their 3rd year was useless (http://www.businessinsider.com/third-year-of-law-school-is-useless-2012-11; http://abovethelaw.com/2013/09/recent-graduates-overwhelmingly-think-their-third-year-was-useless/). It certainly could be the case that these law school students are just simply wrong, but of the many law school teachers, current lawyers, and retired lawyers I've talked to, the vast majority seem to think that law school either is a year too long or 3 years is fine.

Idk though, I haven't been to law school (yet), but I'm interested in what current law school students/law school grads think.

@"Dillon A. Wright"

Hey, I found a video that I couldn't get to play.

https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-1-passage-1-questions

I'm redoing some questions that I marked when I first went through the ciriculum, and I came across this tricky one. I fully see why answer D is correct, but I can't figure out what makes B incorrect. Doesn't answer B deny an alternate cause?

Link: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-33-section-3-question-20

This is a strengthen question.

G is a protein in the brain. In an experiment, rats that preferred fatty foods over lean foods had a lot more G in the brain than did the rats that preferred lean foods over fatty foods. Therefore, G causes rats to crave fatty foods.

What I am looking for: This is a cookie cutter causal flaw. In my mind, a plausible weakener would be that eating fatty foods might cause an increase in G. We need to deny this.

Answer A: OK, so sometimes the rats choose lean foods. So what? Our facts say that the rats "consistently" choose fatty foods. Is this answer choice just sort of restatement of one of our facts? I think it is.

Answer B: This is hard to eliminate, and I think it's wrong because it just isn't relevant. We don't care about the fat in the brain, but rather, a protein in the brain. Part of me still thinks this denies an alternate cause though: the rats didn't prefer the fatty foods due to a fatty brain.

Answer C: So what? We only care about G in the brain, not the food. For this to work, I think you need to assume that the G in the food then goes up to the brain, but that's a weird assumption.

Answer D: This is perfect since it tells us that the rats that like fatty food had higher amounts of G in their brain before they ate the food. This denies that reverse cause scenario that I anticipated.

Answer E: So what? We don't know anything about the efficiency of metabolizing fat.

Damn, PT52 has some pretty tough LR sections, and even after a retake, I missed many of the same question again (like this one). I don't see how answer A weakens the argument nor how B doesn't.

Link: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-52-section-3-question-19

One theory that explains dinosaur extinction is that the dinos OD'd. Angiosperms have psychoactive agents in them. Most plant-eating mammals avoid them since they taste bitter. Mammals also have livers that detoxify the drugs. On the other hand, dinos couldn't taste the bitterness nor detoxify the plant. Lastly, this theory explains why so many dinosaurs were found in weird positions in the fossils.

What I am looking for: Did the dinosaurs actually eat the plants? What if some other theory (like an asteroid) explains the sudden extinction better? Also, we don't even know if the plants were bad for the dinosaurs; we know that angiosperms are bad for some mammals, but what if they were net healthy for dinosaurs? Sure, dinosaurs couldn't detoxify the psychoactive agent (which is bad), but what if the angiosperms provided such large amount of nutrients and other good stuff, that it was worth eating still? Also, we have no evidence that the comparison between the mammals and dinosaurs is even a good comparison; what if the two are so different physiologically any comparison doesn't hold? There is so much wrong with this argument.

Answer A: I just don't see how this weakens the argument. First, it's incredibly weak: we found 1 fossil of a large mammal in a contorted position. But so what? What does this have to do with dinosaurs? Even if you take this to the other extreme: 1 million large mammals were found in contorted positions, you still have the same issue. It doesn't shed any light on what happened to the dinosaurs. Second, the passage never even talks about "large mammals," and the comparison to the mammals in the passage is dubious already, so I don't see how adding this potential third group of mammals to the argument weakens anything.

Answer B: This is what I picked (and I chose this during both my takes of this exam, and kept it both times during BR). Doesn't this point out one of the things I anticipated? If angiosperms provide nutrition, then doesn't this mean they may have actually been GOOD for dinosaurs? In my mind, this not only weakens the argument, but it strongly does so.

Answer C: I think this strengthens the theory. This shows that not only vegetarian dinosaurs ate the angiosperms, but also the meat eating dinosaurs indirectly did as well (which could account for the fact that theory explains the extinction of ALL dinosaurs).

Answer D: OK, but we are talking about angiosperms only. So what if poison ivy doesn't have this stuff in it? This is entirely irrelevant.

Answer E: I think this also strengthens the argument. This shows us that it's possible that animals can actually die from eating angiosperms, so it strengthens the idea that maybe the dinosaurs died from the plant as well. This is a pretty weak strengthener, but it strengthens nonetheless.

Hey guys, I'm doing some older questions as a 5th section on my PTs, and I decided to take PT 7's first LR section. I'm BRing it right now, and I can't for the life of me figure this one out; I skipped it twice during the exam, and I'm still just as clueless on it during BR.

It's a resolve/reconcile question.

In 1990, major engine repairs were done on 10% of NMC cars made in the 1970s while only 5% of those made from the 1960s had major engine repairs done.

What I am looking for: We need to explain the difference. What if cars from the 1960s had sturdier engines or something? What if NMC cranked up production in the 1970s, and cranked out a ton of cars with bad engines?

Answer A: So what? The cars have ALREADY been registered; who cares about the requirements beforehand?

Answer B: I think this sort of makes it stranger. If newer cars (1970s) are driven more carefully than older cars (1960s), then why do cars from the 1970s have a higher proportion of engine repair?

Answer C: This is the credited answer, but huh? What does scrapping the car have to do with anything? This is saying that the 1960s cars are more likely to be scrapped/not repaired than 1970s cars. I just don't see how this resolves anything or is relevant to the issue.

Answer D: OK, but does simplified mean easier to break? This does nothing.

Answer E: This is what I ended up picking, but I really didn't like it (I felt good enough about my POE; plus, I had to choose something since I had skipped this twice). I think this is sort of similar to the idea in answer choice A. Some of the repairs from the 1960s cars could have been avoided if the owners weren't lazy with repairs. But, so what? We are talking about cars that WERE repaired, so this fact doesn't explain anything about the figures given. Why is it still the case that the 1960s cars were repaired at a lower proportion?

Proctors: 2 or 3 proctors. All were VERY strict with the time/putting pencils down; one proctor actually ran to a student to yank the pencil out of her hand. One person got kicked out for not following the instructions. All instructions (phones, food, IDs, etc.) were followed to a T.

Facilities: Ballantine Hall. Bathrooms were on the same floor. Elevators are a pain to use (if you go to IU, Ballantine is a notoriously weird internally designed building).

What kind of room: Small classroom.

How many in the room: The room could fit 30ish students.

Desks: Worst part of the testing room. Small college desks. Not enough room to fit both the test booklet and Scranton at the same time.

Left-handed accommodation: Yes.

Noise levels: No issue with noise.

Parking: Campus parking is a pain. Ballantine has a parking lot, but I walked to the testing room from my apartment. One of the campus bus routes takes you to Ballantine, so that is a possibility if you live off campus/don't want to drive.

Time elapsed from arrival to test: I showed up at 7:30. We started at about 8:30ish/8:45ish. The proctors were very strict about the directions, so we started promptly.

Irregularities or mishaps: Besides the person getting kicked out (which I didn't even realize until after the exam), nothing.

Other comments: I took the exam in September 2014 (PT 73), so some of my information might be out of date (such as if the same proctors are there). However, Ballantine Hall hasn't changed in 1000 years, so I doubt it has changed since then.

Would you take the test here again? If I had a choice to take it elsewhere, I probably would not take it at IU. I really don't like the small desks, so if you can avoid that at your testing center, I'd do that. Nevertheless, if you are an IU student, the closest spot is probably Indianapolis, and although that drive is only about an hour long from Btown, the roads can get pretty bad if the weather is bad in December.

http://futurism.com/artificially-intelligent-lawyer-ross-hired-first-official-law-firm/

Once Sky-net takes over, I'm just imagining poor Ross having nothing to do. In a post-apocalypse, a bankruptcy attorney AI would probably be useless.

Completely missed this one; I really don't see how B is a necessary assumption. Can someone breakdown by B is necessary?

People on the Internet sometimes can't tell the difference between good medical information and bad medical information. The bad stuff is written more clearly than the good stuff, which makes the bad stuff more appealing to people with zero medical experience. Thus, people who rely on the Internet when diagnosing themselves are probably going to do more harm than good.

What I am looking for: Our conclusion is about diagnosing and harming yourself, which are new ideas, so I expect the correct answer choice to bridge that gap. Specifically, the first sentence talks about how people are going online for "medical information," but the conclusion talks about "diagnosing themselves," which is a part of that more broad idea. Are people going to rely on the quackery when they diagnose themselves? What if they use something else instead? Additionally, the idea of people having zero medical background is talked about as a premise, but the conclusion is about people in general. Do people in general not have any medical background?

Answer A: This is what I picked since it was left after POE. I didn't love it, but I was pretty confident in eliminating the other answers. This answer is wrong since "typically" is too strong. We only need people to diagnose themselves sometimes.

Answer B: Not exclusively rely on scientifically valid info--->Likely do more harm than good. This is for sure a sufficient assumption, but I don't see how this is a necessary assumption. If you negate it: Not exclusively rely on scientifically valid info SOME Not likely do more harm than good, then so what? Our conclusion is about reliance on the web in general, and our premise only states that quackery is appealing to people with ZERO medical experience. How does this answer choice bridge the gap between that people vs. people with zero medical experience? Can't there be people that use primarily scientifically valid info pared with some quackery and not likely do more harm than good? I don't see how that is inconsistent with the argument. I was pretty confident getting rid of this answer choice for that reason. Specifically, I think the idea of "exclusively" is way too strong; can't Not exclusively (sometimes, primarily/but not all, etc.) still work?

Answer C: No harm? Too strong.

Answer D: We don't know what people assume or how they weight the importance of clear writing.

Answer E: Only if? Way too strong.

I had this down to B or D during the timed exam, and I can't figure out what is technically wrong with B. In my mind, it's as close to a sufficient assumption as D is.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-2-question-06/

This is a pseudo-sufficient assumption question.

The characters are too stylized for them to be real people. The film is funny, which is important for comedy. The film is popular. Therefore, the criticism of the film for not being realistic is wrong.

What I am looking for: If a comedy is funny, then it's wrong to criticize it for it being not realistic.

Answer A: This severely hurts the argument, which a PSA shouldn't do.

Answer B: I don't see what's wrong with this. This doesn't bring in the comedy part, but I don't see how this isn't a PSA if D is also. We know the film is popular, so if we assume that "if a film is popular, then it is successful," isn't that equally as good answer choice D? Success isn't the word I'd use, but that's why this is a PSA question and not a true SA question. Answer D (the correct answer) also uses the word success.

I get that the "popularity" part is most likely context, but why can't a sufficient assumption make the context relevant to the argument itself? For example, say that

1.) All Jedi use the Force.

Therefore, David uses the Force.

The obvious missing sufficient assumption is "David is a Jedi." But, couldn't I also say that "Everyone named David uses the Force?" To me, that's equally as good a sufficient assumption since it provides an assumption that allows our conclusion to follow validly.

Answer C: We have no idea what films should/shouldn't do.

Answer D: This is close to what I anticipated, so I picked this and kept it during BR. However, what technically makes this better than B? If a film succeeds within a genre (comedy), then the film is successful. Isn't this structurally the same thing as B? The necessary conditions for both B and D are "films are successful" and both sufficient conditions bring in known facts about the film.

Answer E: Same as answer C. We don't know what films should/shouldn't do.

I got this question correct (D was the flaw I anticipated), but during the exam and BR, I couldn't come up with a reason to eliminate E. According to the video explanation, E is explicitly supported in the passage, but I'm just not seeing it. Here is the video: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-63-section-3-question-02/

Almost everyone I know hopes to make a living as painter, musician, etc. if they currently work as dishwashers or store clerks. Therefore, almost all want to be artists, even though they might have to work other jobs to make money.

What I am looking for: Big sample flaw here. The sample the author uses is not varied enough and extremely limited: the people the author knows that are dishwashers or store-clerks. The author uses that as evidence to make a conclusion about "almost all" people in general.

Answer A: The argument isn't circular.

Answer B: The argument sort of makes a part to whole flaw, but it isn't as extreme as this answer choice. The argument never talks about what is true of EACH person (we only have "almost all" relationships) and even then, the evidence is only about people the author knows, not everyone in the country.

Answer C: Is the view widely held? We don't know.

Answer D: This is exactly what I anticipated, so I picked it over E.

Answer E: I read this, and got held up for second. Doesn't the argument do this? The conclusion is about "wanting to be an artists" while the premise is about "making a living as a painter, musician, or poet." Sure, there is an assumption that painters, musicians, or poets are types of artists, but that seems like an OK trivial assumption to me. If those people are not artists, the who are artists? I think the crux of eliminating it is that you don't "need" to make a distinction, but why not? Isn't there a pretty sizable difference between "wanting" to be something (like being a perpetually lazy college kid that doesn't have to wake up until 1:00) vs. making a "living" doing that? I don't see how it's OK for the argument to equivocate on these ideas.

Just curious, has anyone been able to figure out when it was administered? It has a comparative passage (which suggests it is post 55ish) and it has a substitution rule logic games question (which suggests it's post 61ish). The Superprep 11 book was published in July 2015, which is right after PT 75. So, do you think it is fair to say it is close to a 60s or 70s PT? I haven't taken it, and I'm trying to decide where to place it in my PTing.

This is a hard SA question, and I don't see what I am missing. How is answer choice A a sufficient assumption?

My diagram:

(Solution to environmental problem not caused by the government)--->(Major change in consumer habits)--->(Economically Enticing)

Therefore, (Not Economically enticing)--->(Few serious ecological problems solved).

What I am looking for: This is a pretty simply A to B to C argument, and the conclusion as a Not C in it. To link up the chain, say (Not solution to environmental problem not caused by the government)--->(Few serious ecological problems solved).

Answers B-E are way wrong, but I don't see how answer A paraphrases the sufficient assumption at all.

Link: https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-44-section-2-question-13/

I am having a pretty hard time explicitly ruling out C on this one. I correctly chose E during the exam, but on a second viewing of this question, C seems attractive. Here is my breakdown:

This is a strengthen question.

Biopsies taken on people who have had throat surgery show that people who snored had a higher probability of having abnormalities in their throat muscles relative to those who didn’t snore. Thus, snoring damages the abnormalities.

What I am looking for: This is a typical causal flaw: what if the throat abnormalities cause snoring? In other words, what if the causation were reversed? What if something else caused snoring and the abnormalities? What if it is a coincidence? We need to deny these cases.

Answer A: Does this do anything? This might actually weaken the argument because you need to assume that people were being truthful. Is someone going to lean towards honesty when talking about snoring? Maybe not.

Answer B: Who cares what the surgery was for? We want to strengthen the idea that the snoring causes the abnormalities.

Answer C: Doesn't this rule out the possibility that age, weight, and health are a potential alternate cause? Wouldn't this strengthen the argument? It obviously doesn't since it isn't the correct answer, but I don't see how it does not.

Answer D: We don’t care about people who haven’t undergone surgery. Our biopsies deal only with people who have undergone surgery. Plus, this is sort of similar to B. We don’t care about either the intent of the surgery (answer B) nor the effect of the surgery (this answer choice).

Answer E: This is exactly what I anticipated, so I chose this and moved on.

Link to the video: http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-62-section-2-question-16/