for D, i misread the conclusion in the argument. i translated the conclusion to: people with high blood pressure need to reduce their sodium intake.

Tunrs out, the speaker was distinguishing people with and without high blood pressure, stressing "ONLY".

So to weaken, we need to say "there is no that much difference between the two group of people mentioned above".

i picked C because I thought that since there're already a great amount of users, maybe the number of users won't go up that much, after electronic services become more available.

May be C is just less direct and less powerful than A.

I ruled out E because I just took for granted that the chief is using a mussel from farm!

for B, it is too specific, and thus not necessary.

to tweak B to be a correct AC: takes for granted that income from sales of memorabilia is sufficient to prove its popular appeal.

I finally understand how this argument goes: Mariah agrees with Joanna's conclusion but disagrees that the reason is Adam's lack of experience, rather than bias.

i made 3 mistakes in this question.

1. I was tempted to choose B initially, but I misunderstood the meaning of "characterization." I thought that "characterization" means taxonomy

2. I found no fault with D, and I chose it. Turns out, I forgot this is asking about the purpose, not about whether something is reasonable or not.

3. At blind review, I read the third paragraph again and chose A—the purpose of this paragraph.

hey it's fine. We are so similar. I studied from July through October. I should have done badly in my Oct-lsat as well, because I only scored 140 in my PT before the test. But I took the remote test, and the system went into error. I did not even start answering questions in my test.

I would like to take the January lsat as well. Hopefully we'll both do well in that test!

I chose E because I inferred it from the first sentence, "a natural rhythm of life... relaxed." But turns out, this relationship is denied by later data.

Spring? I think it would be better to submit your application before February or March. Although I did see people admitted after that time, I guessed they needed higher lsat and gpa scores, compared with earlier applicants. So maybe the January lsat would be good for you.

for c: if you assume that "the more yield amount per land, the less fertilizer applied", you might chose this AC

however, we're not told about this relationship in the stimuli. What if it is ferilizer make them produce more food per land, and they decide to use more fertilizer.

and there's another problem with c: c talks about the time between 1950 and 1985, while we want explanation for the time after 1985.

Thus c doesn't explain the conflicts in the stimuli.

why i picked E at my first try: i assumed the overall mineral amount in the sea is the same. And as there are more mineral brought to the cave to form stalagmites, there will be less mineral in the rest of the sea.

Why i did not picked B at my first try: i imaginzed that as the cave is under water, the cave will always be pumped with water. Tunrs out, if there is always water in the cave, there will be no stalagmites, because the premise says that stalagmites need water dropping to a floor.

Unproven part in ACs:

A: rewarded

B: other criminial

D: system is unfair

E: only, light, sentence

stimuli: 1. only brought money; 2. rationalize; 3. justified; 4. not my fault => C: not truly criminal

the similarity between B and D: both of them are committing IMPLICATION, the flaw that also exists in the stimuli

the differnece between B and D:

B is about categorizing

D is about comparative

The stimuli is also about categorizing, that's why B is the correct AC

i feel C would be a good AC if we change the stimuli to: using society-as-body metaphor mean this society is a authoritarian society.

maybe it is because I constructed the stimuli in this way that i picked C in my Blind review.

i made 2 mistakes:

1. i didn't translate the dense sentence "it is impossible to collect samples.." well. And thus i did not see the gap between premises and the conclusion

2. i misunderstood D. i thouht if they just used vegetable matter, then that's mean there will be no limestone, and thus we can date the paint. But I forgot that artists paint on limestone. D is just saying they did not use thing other than vegetable matter, when painting on limestone.

i chose D for misread. D would be a correct answer if it is stated "business executives are more responsive to the needs of business than teachers in business schools"

initially, i did not like E, because the stimuli has never mentioned "valuablne insight". It seems like out of scope and too specific, and thus it is not necessary.

i didn't like A because it looks like contradicting with the first sentence in the stimuli.

Tunrs out, the premise in the stimuli indicates a possibility, while A shows the result.

Why i picked E at my first try? Because i thought E is stating that banning polls actually do not bring that much benefits that we expects. Tunrs out, we don't care whether electors are informed or not. I mean, inform ≠ not be affected (stated in the stimuli).

i felt so confused, but after reading explanation, i feel better now. 

why i feel unsured between ACs is because i did not realized that "switch back" in the stimuli actually narrows the scope of discussion to those people who are currently using gas! It made the discussion much eaiser.

i dismissed accountant's conclusion and his logic, and focusing on how to explain the difference betweeen increased total number, what sales manager said, and decreased individual sales, what meantioned by accountant. And that's why i feel confused and puzzled. I found there's not an answer to explain this. i expect the correct answer saying something like the company opened many new restaurants last year. So they have increased overall sales, albeit decreased individual sales.

Tunrs out, the key in this question is focusing on the logic. How the account linking "the desirability of our dishes to our customers have decreased" and "decreased individual sales". And E is a good answer choice which explain the decreased sales with a new reason other than "decreased desirability".

here is my understanding:

first, translate the stimuli:

All stress-caused high blood pressure can be treated by lowering stress. (stress-cause high blood pressure-> able to be treated by lowering stress.)

some high blood pressure can be treated with medicine

so some high blood pressure is not cause by stress

It seems like the author is trying to reason by contrapositive. The author intended to reason by "~able to be treated by lowering stress-> ~stress-cause high blood pressure)

however, there is a dangling, that is, "treated by medicine = not able to be treated by lowering stress."

So our loophole: what if actually this medicine is working by lowering stress. (by this, we prevent the author trigger the necessary condition in the contrapositive.)

and E is the negated loophole, what the author have to assume to prevent failure of the conclusion.

D is dangerous. To be honest, I still find D attractive when I redo this question 2 days later.

Originally, I thought D was wrong because it has the word "some".

Turns out, I now think that what makes D an incorrect AC is because E is a better AC. Compared to D, E is more rigorous and goes a step further. If E is not in the AC lists, I think D will be a good AC. (Without E, I may not even think of the situation mentioned in E)

Finally, the next time we meet such a question, to get it correct, maybe the best way is to leave some time, compare the 2 competing ACs, and pick the best one by ranking.

i picked A at my first try, then B at my Blind Review.

i picked A initially, because i thought if children are following a strict routines, then it would be hard to change their habits, and the children won't like to learn new things.

Turns out, "strict rountines" resonate with "strict systems" in the stimuli, and that's what the author wants. We're helping the author, not harming the argument.

For B, i think short attention span make them hard to learn, and thus harming the argument.

I misunderstood this passage as "problem-solution" style. Because I was totally caught by the word "conflict" in the first paragraph and neglected that the passage read like the author is just telling a personal experience, in a calm and neutral tone, a feeling that is quite different from "problem-solution" style.