Huge issue for me is relying on writing on the passage which is now impossible. Under timed conditions, these are very difficult to answer.

This is so funny. I think everyone over 30 gets this question easily since we grew up with cigarette ads and the debates around banning them. But for younger people its a bit tougher to see the argument.

I wasn't happen with this explanation, and I think it is wrong. The flaw here isn't false dichotomy, it actually is casual/conditional flaw. False dichotomy =

“It treats the two options presented as though they were the only options.”

This question’s flaw =

“It overlooks an alternative possibility.”

This question is difficult because it seems to conflate two different topics that could simultaneously be true.

Don't be afraid to use PoE. I had no idea why A was right, but I used PoE and couldn't eliminate A.

I don't agree with the analysis of B. I think this question is better explained from the standpoint of answer ranking. B is not "obviously wrong," B is wrong because D weakens much more than B does, and therefore D is a better AC than B.

I think a Loophole explanation is better here. "What if dairy has some health benefits?" Or: "What if eliminating dairy has negative health effects?"

Nice theory explanations here if you find that helpful. In TIMED conditions, you can use PoE to quickly eliminate and get to E, which is the correct answer.

Found the wording of some of the answer choices extremely obnoxious in this set, which increased the difficulty for me

I don't think this explanation is that great. If you read the last sentence of the first paragraph it points straight to E.

The stim isn't saying that music is not art, it is saying that there are aesthetic features in music that are not shared with visual arts such as painting or sculpture. For example, romantic music shares some aesthetics with romantic art.

B can be eliminated easily because what if endangered species survived in zoos? Endangered species not surviving in the forests doesn't mean they won't survive elsewhere.

The LSAT writers are really into brown dwarfs

This is a trickier question than Kevin's explanation makes it appear. Kevin seems to know the question is referring to the discovery of Neanderthals during Darwin's time. Where I got confused, is because the first paragraph also mentions the discovery of earlier hominids. These later discoveries then increased our knowledge of earlier hominids. How are we supposed to know the question is only referring to the Neanderthal discovery and not the other discoveries mentioned in the same paragraph?

Universal in past and present=all.