Comparison of relevant portions of reading for answers A and B to demonstrate why A is most analogous:

"...sometimes invaluable in presenting the physical details of a personal injury"

Do they present physical details?

Schematic: Yes

Map: Yes

"The end user is typically a jury or a judge, for whose benefit the depiction is reduced to the details that are crucial to determining the legally relevant facts."

Are they reduced to relevant details as they pertain to a specific audience?

Schematic: Yes, its specified use in a presentation implies the schematic will show that which the engineer feels is relevant and leave out other details (e.g. plumbing but not furniture)

Map: Somewhat, while a map will leave out some details, it is closer to a textbook depiction of everything in a body rather than an audience-specific depiction of only some relevant portions. There is no tailored audience for the map, some may be using it to navigate, while others use it to determine political boundaries, etc.

"...provide visual representations of data whose verbal description would be very complex. Expert testimony by medical professionals often relies heavily on the use of technical terminology, which those who are not specially trained in the field find difficult to translate mentally into visual imagery."

Does it depict something that commonly requires knowledge of specialized technical vocabulary that makes it hard to visualize?

Schematic: Yes, engineering terms can be highly technical and are more readily understood after specialized training.

Map: No, the terms to describe how one should navigate around an area are not highly technical. While there may be specific knowledge of an area, one does not need specialized training in order to understand what that knowledge means.

Context - For years, people have been predicting a catastrophic shortage of scientists and engineers is imminent

P1: Salary data doesn't indicate that there is a shortage right now

P2: Unemployment data doesn't indicate that there is a shortage right now

Assumption - The circumstances now aren't going to change for the worse imminently

C: Therefore, no crash is imminent

Answer choice C makes explicit a component of the assumption. It says that not only is there not a shortage right now, but the numbers of graduates that have recently been sufficient to keep us out of a shortage are going to increase over the next several years; clearly then, there can't be a shortage imminent.

There are more parts of this assumption that could have also been right answers (e.g. demand for scientists and engineers won't go up imminently, a big wave of scientists and engineers have decided to push retirement back from age 65 to 70, etc.).

The key here is recognizing that imminence is a future state, and that by talking about the current situation, the argument has only addressed half of what it is trying to refute. Supporting information for the assumption strengthens the argument.

Not sold on B over C

Another way to read the stimulus is that "a nanobe is too small to contain a reproductive mechanism, a prerequisite for life" should be drawn:

Life → Contain a Reproductive Mechanism

Why is this interpretation any less legitimate than the one offered above?

AC (B) does nothing to show that the nanobes may, in-fact, contain a reproductive mechanism. It shows merely that they may potentially replicate themselves via some other method (like viruses do and, according the AC (B), at least some cellular organisms can (but not must) also do)

AC (C) indicates that the "smallest known bacteria" being used for reference may (according to some scientists) not be the "smallest bacteria," and thus there may be some other means of containing a reproductive mechanism that we are unaware of.

We expect: High Quality corresponds with High Popularity

We observe: Marvis - High Quality, Less Popular // Traintrack - Ordinary Quality, More Popular

Critic Explanation: In this instance , popularity is almost entirely explained by convenience

To justify his logic, we need a principle that relates convenience/popularity to quality

(A) is immaterial (see video)

(E) says there is no relation between convenience/popularity and quality. While this explains the conclusion, it does not justify the logic (see video)

(D) relates quality (improve its products) to popularity (only when it is necessary to do so to attract customers) in the right direction to explain our observation.

I was thrown off by "improve" rather than "will make exceptional products" because it seems to presume that exceptional/ordinary are absolute rather than relative, but that's not the operant distinction among the answers that the LSAT writers want us to find here.

Q14 relevant text in support of AC A:

"Olsen relies heavily on statistical tabulations of the Botai horses by sex and age at death, looking for mortality patterns that might correlate with expectations regarding domesticated herds or wild victims of hunting"

"Another clue that at least some of the horses may have been domesticated and that some may have even been ridden is in the fact that their remains include full skeletons, entire vertebral columns, and pelvises. It is unreasonable to suppose that hunters dragged whole 1,000-pound carcasses back to their dwellings."

Olsen's hypothesis that the horses were domesticated and some were ridden is based on comparing mortaility patterns correlated to domesic or wild animals. From quote 2, there are some untouched horse bones among the remains. If these were relatively common, then it's evidence the Botai were not raising the horses only for food, which supports the part of the hypothesis that they were raising them to ride. Conversely, if they were uncommon, it may have been just a horse or two that they decided not to eat.