in my opinion, A and E both have a problem

A) doesn't trigger that 'toxic to humans --> damaging to human health (which I guess you can assume, but there have been more obvious thing you assume and get wrong for on the LSAT so ...)

E) doesn't trigger a converted landfill - only a regular one - which is ridiculous, bc our argument is literally talking bout converting them

between the two A is less bad, but I still thing its not a perfect AC - any thoughts on this?

does being comfortable mean being successful? is that what wrong AC A is trading on? IE I assume that comf living = success and that therefore I have something like

3+ years <--> success

but really we have

success --> 3+ years (ie not a biconditional arrow)

I actually thought E was a really good answer here. I thought D was a trick answer (that would be true if it was an SA question) but wasn't necessarily necessary as an NA kind of AC, whereas I thought E targeted the issues needed for NA better

there is star A in galaxy X

Star B in galaxy X

Differences in distance from Earth to Star A and B is negligible in relation to distance to earth from Galaxy X (Ie it doesn't matter enough)

So if Star A & B look different, it is bc of other characteristics, not distance (and here the question assumes that you know that the brightness of a star reflects how far away it is - which is a bit unfair to assume people know, if you ask me)

C- We should be able to determine how Star A and Star Bs relative brightness to earth corelate with other characteristics of Star A and Star B

I first chose D and then switched to E bc D is tempting 0- there are other characteristics that are discernable, but then I thought, the conclusion just says 'we should be able to determine' ie, in the hypothetical, that option exists, not how we might, or what we need for that to happen, only that theoretically, the possibility holds. I thought, D is an SA answer -it makes it possible to do, we need the AC just to make it not impossible to do, so I crossed off D

and then I thought - that is what E does. Bc the conclusion 'we should be able to tell the difference' relies on the principle that the difference in brightness is not about difference, but what if, as E suggests - there is an exception and there is a significant enough difference between two stars distance from earth in the same galaxy - will the fact that the brightness is due to distance, and not the type of shining be discernable? If the answer to this is no, well then guess what? The whole argument falls apart! this is an NA for the argument to hold, bc if we cant trust the "rule" that difference in brightness is not about distance, and when there is an exception, then the conclusion: "we should be able to" doesn't hold -- bc when there are wholes in the process / way of approaching it, we cannot detect them. Therefore the conclusion does not hold, and the argument falls apart

Idk, maybe if it says 'could' and not 'should' this would hold?

Honestly the video is terrible. It just says that there isl ink between literary art and fiction. KEY WORD-- This is about Jewett's CONCEPTION of literature as art, which we barely discussed in the passage. all we have as support is 'Jewett intended her work not as a means to an end but an end to themselves'

How do you get from that to the fact that she even had a conception of literature as art and how it effected her fiction. Unless you're using 'unlike domestic novels' ie she had the opposite intent of domestic novels, and her writing was for art - in which case that was the intention. But I really think this is a kind of vague question with not any very good answers.

I really don't get this one. It seems strange to me. Aren't we saying that ' real lives don't arrange themselves in stories' and that Shostak was using their dialogue as a backdrop to create shape to the ambiguity that Nisa is? To me, E seemed the easiest to cross off at first - bc it seemed like she was not doing that.

the word 'confident' to me emant that A is wrong. Why is that not so?