@jzimo02 Jim provided a solid explanation of what was wrong with B, and the video explanation of why B is wrong is very good as well. I had initially selected B because I liked it more than E (I narrowed it down to B and E), E seemed like it was pulling too much from what I considered context. Thankfully, I caught it in the Blind Review and fixed it. But even if the explanation about cost isn't great or convincing, we can look at it another way.

B says "Protecting the habitat of wild animals so that we can utilize these animals as a food source is more cost effective than raising domesticated animals."

The passage is talking about Bison. There are more animals on the prairie than just bison, there are also prairie dogs. The stimulus made no mention of using prairie dogs (which are wild animals) as a food source. It overgeneralizes and that is why it is a poor choice, not to mention we know nothing about what is more or less cost effective.

Hope that helps!

Edit: changed "groundhogs" to "prairie dogs" x2.

To the last point that was made, I wish I had that advice sooner, or rather, I wish I would have taken it more seriously. In the old curriculum I focused WAY TOO MUCH on trying to understand weakening questions on the Logical Reasoning (LR) sections. I spent so much time on trying to understand them that I severely hurt my LSAT score earlier this year. A majority of my LR stuff I understood, and I was actually significantly better at strengthening questions than weakening questions (despite how similar they really are). Do not make my mistake. It is OK to not grasp something 100% when going through the lessons, that's what drills are for, and as was said, flag them and return to them later.

I love the use (and modification) of the classic Socrates Syllogism.

@AwkwardDecentDefinition Think of it this way, your selected conclusion is" "There has been a surge in obesity rates". Why should we believe this? "Nutritionists have noticed that since the fast food boom of the 1980s". To me, this (the italics) is a dependent clause and needs something else to make it make sense. "Nutritionists have noticed that there has been a surge in obesity rates" is the completion of this thought. OK, what does that mean? We are left with the phrase, "since the fast food boom of the 1980s". OK? Since this time... did the stock market crash? Did a tree spontaneously combust? It does not make sense on its own. My English teacher taught me to ask questions like that when looking at a phrase like this. If your question is a complete thought like, "Nutritionists have noticed that there has been a surge in obesity rates", then you have an independent clause. In other words, the "since" here is acting as something else. I have noticed that 9/10 times, if not 10/10 times, premises make a complete thought. This all being said, we can look at what you selected as P2. "Consequently, almost all of this surge can be attributed to decreased physical activity and changes in dietary habits." Why should be believe this statement? Because "[N]utritionsists have noticed that since the fast food boom of the 1980s...". You are correct to point out that we should not over rely on indicator words, but you zeroed in on the wrong indicator. "Since" in this case is acting in a different capacity.

Another way to look at this is to look at it as you will later on in the course (I am revisiting everything because I switched from the old course to the new one and had an issue with transferring my stuff over I guess, its fine, revisiting this has been super informative, I digress) is to look at through the lens of Phenomenon/Hypothesis.

Phenomenon (P): "Nutritionists have noticed that since the 1980s there has been a surge in obesity rates".

Hypothesis (C): "Consequently, almost all of this surge can be attributed to decreased physical activity and changes in dietary habits."

Obviously, not everything will be in a phenomenon/hypothesis format, i.e., Question 1.

TL;DR: You parsed the first sentence incorrectly, "since" is not being used as a premise indicator here and you, very likely, overthought what the question was.

Sorry this is so long, but I hope that it helps!

@Derekt19 There are occasions where small assumptions are allowed and even necessary. This one is more to illustrate the idea of reasonability in arguments, I think.

I uttered a string of expletives quite suddenly. The coffee table is moved nearly a foot from its original position. Therefore, I kicked the coffee table.

@LusYed As someone who has already gone through a good chunk of the old curriculum, I can tell you, for a fact, that you will be fine. I studied philosophy in undergrad so I already had an idea of what certain indicators were. This one was telegraphed well. "Therefore" is a pretty reliable conclusion indicator. This is all a game and I think of it like Dark Souls (for any fellow fans out there). The more you learn the telegraphs for the NPCs, the easier the game will be. Therefore, the more you learn which words indicate what, the easier it will become! ;) Hope this helps!

Maybe I missed it, but if I were to "Ask a Tutor", is there an additional cost associated with that?

@JustinPlummer5100 Best of luck! You got this!

I used to do that, and I still have the urge to do it, however, I have found that I really understand the reasoning behind answer selections a lot more now because I DIDN'T check after every question, I only did it when I was locked in, and when I was locked in on my BR. My only issue going forward is my timing, which I am sure will get faster with practice. That all being said, that is the method of study that has worked for me so far, it may not be the best for you, but I would try avoiding it and seeing if it work!

I wish I would have gone through the material I was stuck on as quickly (but efficiently) as possible. I hurt myself in my last LSAT because there was SO MUCH I didn't know for the rest of the test. I was too fixated on trying to be perfect that I sacrificed the RC section entirely and half of the LR. Lesson learned!

@Chair-sama II That, and the fact that "each" in the second part of the stimulus can still include one of the students in the imperfect attendance group. I.e., if there are 4 students, one could have an F while the others are all Bs and it still works because yes, three students have a B, but the one with the F is lower than B- AND missed at least one class session. (If my understanding is correct)

So, I definitely missed key parts to this, but what I figured out (and later confirmed after the explanation) is that:

"All students with C+ or lower grades had imperfect attendance" =/= "All students with imperfect attendance had a bad grade (C+ or lower)."

I totally missed that distinction while doing this question.