Question honestly does not make a ton of sense to me. If we assume the first sentence is a subconclusion and the last sentence is a conclusion, then it should make sense when connected by "because'', but it does not.

Jazz consists largely of voicelike horns and hornlike voices because the best jazz singers use their voices much as horn players use their instruments.

The best jazz singers use their voices much as horn players use their instruments because jazz consists largely of voicelike horns and hornlike voices.

Both of these make sense fundamentally, but it would seem that the main conclusion is the first sentence.

Is there something I am missing here?

@AjaySharma You just have to stick with it, the language and structure of the LSAT is confusing. There are many instances where the correct answer isn't really the right answer so much as the least wrong answer. Take your time, and trust that if you commit yourself to improvement you can improve.

If you can build little by little everyday then you will go from 1/5 to 2/5 to 5/5 in no time. These concepts are tough, stick in there!

@EricPreneta Makes total sense! It can be easy to try and make all encompassing rules, but as the lessons mention it is always important to examine the context. Sounds like you were able to do that

@anamat I am by no means an expert but I looked and could not find an answer for the question you are asking so I will try to provide one!

We are examining the relationships between statements here. The conclusion will be supported by the premises presented in the argument. The conclusion can often times be found by asking just one simple question, "Why should I believe that?", or "What evidence is given to support this statement?". In this case, the conclusion is that Max having asked the police to investigate shows that he is not guilty. Why should I believe that? Because if Max were guilty, he would not ask the police to investigate!

The argument is not a very good one, which actually often times makes the conclusion less obvious, but in this case, the idea that he would object to investigation if he were guilty is supporting the claim that he is not guilty, because he did not object to investigation.

Hope that clears it up a bit!

I am still confused as to why AC E on Q3 is the "best answer", as it seems to be reliant on an inference that bridges a larger gap than the inference one would need to make for AC A. What I mean by that is that AC E does have textual support, but that it is very flimsy. The section highlighted in passage A, in my mind, works more as evidence for AC A than for AC E. It is a pivot, stating that brute forcing is no longer necessary. As such it follows in my mind that the most strongly supported AC is A, as there is a textual basis to argue that each author would agree with the given statement.

As for AC E, one must assume that the author of passage B understands the implications of what it means to process large-scale climate trends. Again, one AC essentially restates the main point, which is that parallel processing solves the problem of large-scale data processing. AC E is a much greater and, from my reading, much less supported assumption.

Am I misunderstanding the text? Why is one assumption more supported than the other if they both use the same textual basis as evidence?

@JaceGuinto95 You got this! Just stay consistent, the LSAT is a whole new language. You have to rewire your brain and learn to think how the test writers think.

@misoop I believe that is correct. The conclusion of the researchers is not used to substantiate a claim, as nothing is being argued. It is a statement of fact, which is often times used as support for an argument and arguments have conclusions, but in this case it is just a statement of fact.