@ajmusic2026 yea i imagine the low correct answer rate has more to do with time since this is the last q of the section on a passage that i think took ppl a fair amount of time to parse. possible that ppl scanned to answer quickly and ruled out A by flagging the word "general" since in isolation it could imply a broad statement that usually wouldn't work for MSS qs. The comparison of algorithms and general scientific principles pretty heavily implied this and this was even something a previous q hinged on

@Loren I asked the same question and it made me very iffy about AC A. Unfortunately it's a "most likely to agree" so though the irony to me is somewhat debatable, the core of the AC is much more supported than anything else.

Revisiting the question I found some support for "ironic" being an ok descriptor? The author seems to feel that even if Marsalis' promotion of "the masters" and traditionalism in jazz influenced the direction labels went with ONLY promoting classic artists, the labels' actions are MUCH more extreme in the sense of "classicism". Marsalis DID want new development in jazz, he just wanted new artists to look back on tradition as an inspiration point to reinvent and integrate into the "new". There's a bit of irony in placing outsized blame on Marsalis for the record labels' misrepresentation of his beliefs and taking them to an extreme that Marsalis ultimately didn't want (his own prominence as an artist was hurt by this). There is also some more direct irony where the former Columbia executive is criticizing Marsalis for his "retro ideology" when he was once a part of the type of institution that actually stifled jazz as a genre through their business practices.

@Liliana_Levy

You don't know that removing milk/dairy would have negative effects- but A is saying that the author didn't even consider/address whether or not it would. When these kinds of flaw questions provide answer choices that say something like "The argument ignores/overlooks/fails to consider/etc.", that choice is suggesting there is an important question left unanswered by the stimulus. The answer to that question could change the validity of the argument, so drawing a conclusion without even bringing that up would be grounds for criticism.

The conclusion switch up to "good health" rather than discussing heart disease is exactly how this stim wants to trip you up. It's a common tactic by the LSAT writers to switch out a variable at the last second.

So going back to this q, the stim argument only talks about how avoiding dairy means you're less likely to eat fat, and avoiding fat helps with avoiding heart disease. The reasonable conclusion would be that avoiding dairy could help with avoiding heart disease. BUT the author concludes that avoiding dairy will help with "maintaining good health". Avoiding heart disease could be one aspect of good health, but "good health" MUCH broader and we don't know what cutting out dairy might do to other aspects of health. Maybe it causes vitamin deficiencies that can lead to other diseases. Maybe those diseases have a higher chance of occurring than heart disease. We don't know, so we can't make an informed decision on whether avoiding dairy will actually keep us in good health. There could be negative consequences even if avoiding dairy would decrease the risk of heart disease.

@embino Also, that could happen- but with a structure question no one has to have a good, complete argument. So stim Terry could be wrong, but it's just about matching the type of response he gives. In AC A, he could be wrong too - maybe all the stores are closed, or maybe the plants are really picky and need consistent rainfall, maybe Jordan doesn't even have running water. It doesn't rlly matter

@embino Yeah I also struggle to accept when the right AC still isn't a perfect parallel- but unfortunately it seems the LSAT rlly wants to piss u off like that. Ultimately, the recommendation vs. prediction is kind of a nit-pick compared to the way the other ACs diverge.

What I've found useful is to reaallly abstract the structure, and if I'm still not convinced and have time- abstract further. Instead of thinking of the "buy a hose" response as a suggestion, it can be thought of as "hey there actually is a way that the negative effects of one of your options can be mitigated". On the other side, you can think of Terry's response in the stim as saying "hey if we just apply one of your options to everyone, then we can mitigate the negative effects". The recommendation vs. prediction distinction kinda loses relevance and it's more about an option not necessarily having the negative outcome suggested by the first speaker- bc there is a way to mitigate it.