How I understood B is; "fear that a certain type of event will occur is well founded if those who have control over the occurrence of events of that kind (Nuclear accident at a nuclear power plant), stand to benefit financially from such an occurrence (benefit from a nuclear accident)".

B is like a conspiracy. Its saying that the power plant owners, who have some control over the occurrence of nuclear accidents, will benefit in some way when a nuclear accident occurs. Therefore we should fear that nuclear accidents are a threat. It doesn't connect to the contradictions in the governments actions, what they are telling the public, and the facts of proving an injury is a result of a nuclear accident.

I got the correct answer through process of elimination. However, I don't really understand how to tell the difference between the times it is okay or even necessary to equate two words versus when it is absolutely not okay. I have gotten questions wrong because I equated two extremely similar words to mean essentially the same thing. Is there any way to tell or do we just have to get lucky?

I got this wrong at first, but during blind review I saw my mistake.

The form in the stimulus is that an entity is able to create two things (a car manufacturer can create a car that is more fuel efficient and they can create a car that passes safety standards). The conclusion assumes that since two things are possible, they are possible at the same time (creating a car that is both fuel efficient and can pass safety standards).

Answer choice C has the same form. An author (single entity) can write a a novel that appeals to critics and an author can write a novel that is best-selling (two possible choices/outcomes). The conclusion states that since there are two possible outcomes to writing a novel, then an author must be able to write a novel that satisfies both possible outcomes at the same time.

My shallow analysis was looking for an answer choice that presented two considerations for making a decision (more expensive vs. more familiar) and then takes one of those factors away (both prizes equally as unfamiliar) leaving us with only one consideration for the decision (how expensive the prize is).

That is why I chose E. A rabbit gets two choices for evading a predator (double back or flee to nearby cover). We are told one is removed (no nearby ground cover), therefore the rabbit is left with only one option or consideration (therefore it must try and double back).

Jumping in here, but as long as you understand the argument, going through the answer choices and negating them has given me the right answer every single time. if you negate wrong answer choices they will not affect the argument at all. The correct answer choice, when negated, will completely destroy the argument.

I mapped out the stimulus to the best of my ability, and found the assumption. My question is, why do we need to assume that there is vitamin d in the milk? Is there a reason why finding the assumption that older people will be able to absorb the calcium in a glass of milk would not be sufficient to find the correct answer?

I don't know if this is a correct way to reason through this question, so tell me if I'm wrong, but after reading the stimulus and identifying the conclusion, I looked for any variable that was not present in both the stimulus and conclusion. Those two variables happened to be money and happiness. Since sufficient assumption questions are asking us (in simple terms) to supply a missing premise to make an argument valid, I looked for any answer choice that talked about money and happiness. That is how I chose A. I eliminated answer choice E and D because they talk about wealth. That was too large of an assumption for me. B was silly, because we already know we cannot have happiness without health, so we cannot have money and happiness at the exclusion of health. C was wrong for me because we aren't given any reasons why we should value health, just that it is necessary for happiness. Any feedback is welcome.

I think you're too in your head for this question. The two objects being compared is large fruits and small fruits. what is being compared between the two objects? which one has a smaller seed to weight ratio. The operative word is "smaller" and the comparative claim says that large fruit have a smaller weight to seed ratio. The specific ratio doesn't matter, all the information you need for that specific question is found in the claim itself.

I almost switched my answer from A to B in blind review so I think I can help. We know that the only way anyone can be eligible for the Mayor's Commendation award is by having an exemplary record. We also know if an officer does not have an exemplary record they cannot receive the award. So any police officer who has so much as been written up is not eligible. In the next sentence, we find another qualification, but this only applies to anyone who is eligible for the award (anyone with an exemplary record). You forgot that in order for the "save lives + same year + above expectations" rule to trigger, the officer has to have an exemplary record, which A shows officer Penn does not. By not having the exemplary record, the rule is irrelevant to Penn but still applies to officer Franklin. Therefore, A allows us to bridge the logical gap and allows the conclusion to be validly drawn.

I only listen to JY talk about the logic in the stimulus and any answer choices that I was close to choosing. I wish some lessons he would give more concise explanations for why wrong answer choices are wrong, since we have about a minute per question.

I agree that explanations in this course aren't always the best, but sometimes there are answer choices that should be so obviously wrong to you that you say "who cares". It means it is completely irrelevant to what the question stem is telling you to do. If you cannot see why some ACs don't need an explanation, maybe go back to previous logic lessons. Timing on the LSAT makes it impossible to know and articulate why every answer choice is wrong.

I got the correct answer choice but haven't really seen anywhere (in a concise way), why answer choice A is incorrect. I eliminated A because, to me, it did not "bridge" the gap, or explain the phenomenon observed. It implied that the researchers data was biased, and could not be trusted to explain the difference between the two bird population's beak sizes. A tells me that there are birds with larger beaks, or at least with the same beak sizes as the ones in captivity that the scientists did not or could not catch which skewed their data in favor of the smaller size. Hoping that this is a correct line of thinking, and also to help people like me, who was looking for a concise explanation why A was wrong.