Note to self via Question #2: The author themselves need to make a conclusion, otherwise they are just reporting/relaying the opinions or findings of someone else. "Scientists theorize..." "Scientists conclude...", The author's POV is not mentioned at all here. Don't assume that the scientist's conclusion would be the same as the one the author makes.

@Elecoo how long did it take you to finish the full curriculum?

@SarahShaver LOLLLL

@RyanUribe lmfaoooo this is hilarious

@stevensari the premise is the support, so yeah. Understanding what the premise is would be understanding the support.

Question: In the analysis, I see that there was no conclusion highlighted for Person Y. Is their first sentence not the conclusion? I'm trying to get in the habit of identifying premise and conclusion for every question I review.

@mbrzostowska9 I live in Queens and would like to take the LSAT by August

@Jessica Kim it becomes "B minus or higher" since lower than a B- is a C+.

Sharing my notes in case it may help someone now or in the future:

This is a Main Point Question

I chose AC C during my AT and then correctly chose AC E in BR. But reviewing this 3 days later without looking at the correct answer, I thought AC C was correct (again)...

AC E is the correct answer

Why did I eliminate the right answer?

I thought that the sentence following "however" was the author's premise. But it really was the author's conclusion. A sentence containing "however,...." can only be the premise if it has a conclusion keyword in the following sentence (such as "therefore").

Essentially "however...," can either be an evidence key word or a conclusion key word based on the context, and in this context, it is a conclusion key word.

In this stimulus the author is rejecting the claim of OPA (the 1st sentence) and introducing a claim they believe to be more plausible.

Why did I choose this wrong answer?

I chose AC C because I interpreted "little plausibility..." in the conclusion of the stimulus to mean "some plausibility". But I also really thought the first sentence was the conclusion. I need to read more closely next time :)

@lawstudent0109 In regard to this question, the stimulus uses an analogy (which is a form of a comparison) as their premise to support their conclusion. So with that in mind, I knew that the correct AC would have a missing link that is relevant to the premise. If you're going to attempt to use an analogy to back up your conclusion, you need to make sure that it is truly able to be comparable to the conclusion-- and that is what AC D does (adds a factor to the analogy that makes the parallel between the premise and conclusion more clear) If AC D was not true, then the argument falls apart because it wouldn't be a true comparison

It may also be helpful to see the correct answer to NA questions as a premise strengthener. For me, AC D is the only answer that helped bridge the gap from premise to conclusion.

I really hope this helps in some way :)

@FarisPohan I know you tagged Madison, but if I understand your question correctly, Madison was just using a random day to drive the point home that poetry readings could very well be happening every single day on a day other than Wednesday. So we cannot assume that Wednesday is the most common day that Zack offers half prices coffee all day.

@lawstudent0109

Can you explain the "SA --> C" aspect of "SA --> C --> NA"? I want to make sure I'm following completely.