Analysis says “The author assumes that the first-year students at this university are representative of first-year students in general.”

But I don’t see that happening in this stimulus. The Psychiatrist says in his conclusion “The first year students…” which seems to limit the scope to students at his university, specifically those he treats.

I majorly second this.

Edit: Apologies if this is not the sort of feedback being requested here. TL;DR: I don’t use my WAJ on 7sage because it is difficult to distinguish WAJ and other notes.

Being able to implement custom tags to notes (in addition to the existing question/stimulus type tags) would be awesome I think. There are certain habits I am trying to break that are not necessarily stimulus or Q-type dependent that I would like to be able to easily review. For example, I struggle with making unwarranted assumptions about ACs. It would be cool to tag those when it happens, so I can review my mistakes across various instances, identify patterns, etc.

Right now I primarily use a 3-subject notebook for notes (supplementing with some notes on 7sage, but only sparsely). 1 section for active problem solving/diagramming. One for WAJ. One for reflection. I prefer this because it is separate but unified in a single notebook. If I could do something like this on 7sage that would be neat because obviously what is actually missing from my notebook is the ability to quickly reference questions.

B stated conditionally: If we should attempt to prevent/control forest fires, then preventing/controlling forest fires should be to protect forests and their ecosystems.

Author premise: preventing/controlling forest fires does not protect forests or ecosystems.

Author conclusion: We should not attempt to prevent or control forest fires (i.e. leave them alone/let them burn naturally).

@CONNORHAV1LL We don’t know that some skilled artists are famous. We also don’t know that some creatives are famous. All we know is that some skilled artists are not famous (“not all skilled artists are famous”).

@MMAceAttorney177 I’m wondering if this is one of those LSAT quirks where if the author states “X is important,” we are supposed to assume author thinks X is the only important thing. Like how when an author says “X caused Y”, it is safe to assume they think X is the only cause of Y. Not sure though.

@Daisy228 My rule of thumb is, if you have to make an unreasonable assumption about an AC to force it to work (e.g. assuming that vacations are even occasionally within one’s professional capacity), you’re overthinking it/it is incorrect.

@DeliaCanDoIt! @PkmnTrainerKevin

I’ll try an answer why A is wrong (I also initially chose A). First, imagine what it would mean if only 2 of sugars 1-3 were ever thought to exacerbate hyperactivity. That would mean we are testing S1 (say, the actual culprit for exacerbating hyperactivity) against essentially 3 controls instead of only 1 (the substitute alone). This actually gives more data about stuff we already presumably believed had no effect on hyperactivity (from S2, 23, and the substitute) that showed the same result as the culprit (S1). If the suspected cause (S1) just does the same thing that 3 other unsuspecting sugars/sugar subs do, then I am more inclined to “dismiss the widely held suspicion that sugar consumption often exacerbates hyperactivity” (agree w the conclusion) than I would be if it did the same thing as only 1 other unsuspecting sugar sub. So A actually potentially strengthens the conclusion, not weakens it.

Also @DeliaCanDoIt!, I suspect you are making an unwarranted assumption in saying that A indicates the author “chose unrepresentative types of sugar and thus screwed with their results”. That the sugar was unrepresentative does not suggest that the results were then screwed with. At best it would show that their method was flawed.

@HimajaReddy addressed your last point about ‘some’ below, which I found helpful. You admit that C) casts doubt on the conclusion. That is sufficient to weaken it.