Can someone explain how B) makes sense in strengthening the conclusion that the current theory is wrong?

I understand its strengthening the instruments point by saying theyre very accurate. But if anything this doesnt strengthen the conclusion at all.

What if the neutron stars which were detected farther away were precisely what the “current theory” predicted (which is why the instruments were used in that region in the first place). This didn’t strengthen anything except the current theory.

Remember this is a “MUST be true” not most strongly supported. You cant definitively prove that the general assembly starts at 6 and that same general assembly wont start again at 7. This is more like an MSS question.

C) is genuinely a terrible answer. It takes far less to assume that Caligula simply copied previous cruel tyrants because thats just how they ruled.

If the 10 previous rulers all starved their citizens, then when Caligula does it, its not that unrealistic.

Wild assumption to make that the tech is only available to the commercial fishing vessels. Honestly a pretty ridiculous answer choice

Not sure how B makes sense, why would North Americans’ greater intake of red wine lead to higher incidence of liver problems yet somehow according to these premises, people in France aren’t dying of liver disease left and right if they are consuming high quantities of red wine?

Basically, why would i believe that X amount of red wine consumption would cause liver problems in North Americans yet X amount of red wine consumption is not causing liver problems in the French?

@dragon7 its an incredibly dumb question is what it is

Are we to assume every moon orbits precisely one planet? That’s a strange thing to assume

@EvanReimer Exactly my thoughts. Stupid question because it has offered me no information on ALL ingredients. The Stim is talking specifically about “Died parsley” not all possible tastes ingredients.

Still confused, I think it takes a very strange contortion of logic to not reason B could possibly increase profits. It is absolutely within reason to assume if there are fewer instances of shoplifting your profits WILL increase by a matter of consequence. If 50% of my inventory is being stolen will automatically increase my profits if i prevent that EVEN if my business is still losing money as a whole. Not sure how B does NOT resolve the issue

This is top 10 dumbest questions I’ve come across on the LSAT. It’s not unreasonable to assume that if the family business does better, the family’s overall prosperity increase despite their low wages. Horrible question.

Very strange question can someone explain it to me? I feel like this is extremely poorly worded because what if the current size of the Florida panthers habitat is lets say 5,000 square feet. C) says unless larger habitat, their population will not be self-sustaining. What if we increase their habitat by 1 square foot? We just increased their habitat to be larger but it made no functional difference to their habitat thereby rendering C incorrect. X + Y, where Y > 0 but this is seems untrue? Maybe im doing too much

I eliminated (E) because based on the stimulus, it doesn’t state that any antibiotic was actually used on bacteria X. It could just be assuming “no single antibiotic now on the market is powerful enough”. E) makes the jump to say they have been used and bacteria as become resistant to some without a clear claim in the stimulus

Can someone explain to me how “the selection of rocks for Japanese gardens” is the same as “the selection of rock for placement in Japanese gardens” is the same thing? It’s very easy to see how choosing rocks is not the same as choosing rocks for placement is not the same or even similar. One can choose rocks but not place them. Saying one can infer that isn’t very helpful either since there are plenty of questions where inferences like that can cost you.

Why was the “can’t” in the last sentence of question 5 not treated as “negate and make necessary rule” such as in the Barbie example in Question 4? Shouldn’t it be written as:

More to learn -> /(9th level)?

Since “can’t” is a negate and necessary rule?

@CeciliaBurton1 Exactly what I was thinking. That whole conditional chain was bizarre

For question 2 the last sentence- “should remember that the president made ‘this’ decision knowing…”. Isn’t “this” also a referent ?