@Cee🦋 full disclosure: the explanation was AI's explanation. With that being said, negate E and the argument is destroyed. Academics are fully capable of writing clearly, they are just UNWILLING - they are fully capable of fulfilling the NEED - they are just unwilling. So let's negate E. If academics are unwilling to write clearly, there WOULD BE a special need for outsiders to write clearly. The argument already says the convoluted language ALIENATES outsiders which implies outsiders are NOT CAPABLE of writing clearly. If our "bare minimum" assumption depends on outsiders writing clearly, our argument is destroyed. Hope that cleared things up. Remember, we're arguing against the stimulus ONLY - turn your common sense, real world brain OFF.

@Nathan1138 if you add AC C to the already existing premise in the stimulus, it will guarantee the conclusion.

1) In order to understand an issue fully, it is essential to consider conflicting evidence impartially.

2) AC C: anyone who does not understand an issue fully should avoid taking a strong position on it.

CONCLUSION: It is best not to take a strong position on an issue unless one has already considered all conflicting evidence = it is best to take a strong position on an issue if one has already considered conflicting evidence.

** important to note that "understand an issue fully" and "considered conflicting evidence" are synonymous in this question.

ISTG, sometimes I just want to shake the shit out of the LSAT!

The stimulus says NOTHING about insects. Why is C more likely than A? The stimulus just says "as expected, the birds ate many mosquitoes". It doesn't say most of the birds ate many mosquitoes - it doesn't say many of the birds ate many mosquitoes. It just says the birds at many mosquitoes. For all we know, only 2 birds ate many mosquitoes. While the trees attracted 150 birds which would explain why, even though birds ate many mosquitoes, the mosquito population wasn't reduced.

@lsattsal the question stem: describes the ESSAYIST'S method of defending the definition AGAINST the objection. So the objection must belong to the critic.

Here's a hack that doesn't work all the time, but if you're going to end up guessing anyway, it might be worth your while to consider. Notice how none of the AC except A have the word "objection" in them? If I'm going to defend a definition against your OBJECTION, it would be very likely that I'm going to assert that your OBJECTION is based on....

@Saulgoodman LOL

@MasculineExpressiveHighway Right? There is no reason to believe is the same as there is no evidence to believe in my world. Oh well. 2 more days and this is over. WOOWOO!

I'm so glad this is going to be over in 2 days. LOL.

If it's CA, then it arrives in 2 days.

If it doesn't arrive in 2 days, then it's not CA = incorrectly addressed.

So if it doesn't arrive in 2 days, then it's incorrectly addressed. But that doesn't mean if it's incorrectly addressed, it doesn't arrive in 2 days.

Just take my tuition payment. LOL.

Oh LSAT! You dirty bird you!

Not a fan of this question. The stimulus specifically says "a high-calories diet providing adequate fats was a crucial requirement". AC E does state that shore brains were burning more calories than savanna and woodland brains, but there is no implication/distinction/information on whether the food sources in savanna and woodland areas were abundant in "adequate fats".

The LSAT always gets cute when it comes to the difficult/very difficult questions. SMH.

Don't be your own worst enemy. FLAG, SKIP, GUESS.

@soleluna883 thank you for turning the light bulb on for me. Definitely something I didn't notice - thank you. Pattern recognition can be a life saver when struggling to find the correct answer. Appreciate you. P.S. Still not a fan of the question. LOL!

Ugh - confused. I viewed the flaw as we have premises talking about time/light and all of a sudden we have a conclusion that introduces "reliable identification". I picked C.

I'm not understanding why it's okay to assume there was a cloud impeding the moon light but it's not okay to assume Klein could have been too upset to make a reliable identification if there wasn't anything blocking the moon light.

SMH. 9 days and counting.

The LSAT is in 9 days. Stop second guessing yourself. Carry on.

Who is doing this in 1 minute and 30 seconds? LOL. I got it right - but not in 1 minute and 30 seconds.

8+ minutes for a question is WILD. On test day: GUESS.

If it's okay to make the jump from "feasible" to "viable", then it's okay to make the jump that LF cotton is ecologically safer to process than SF cotton. I said what I said. BYE.

I'm a pharmacist. Antihistamines, when taken alone, absolutely are NOT effective against congestion caused by colds. Antihistamines are not effective against congestion period. LSAT 0, me 1. I'm taking it. Leave me alone. BYE.

My speedbump with MBT questions is conceptually, I go into them thinking: I can only take the stimulus to be true - cannot bring in any outside assumptions. But then I hear J.Y.'s explanations and it seems like he rules out answers based on "this could be true" which to me seems like we're allowing outside assumptions. Hopefully, this will clear up soon because the LSAT is in less than 2 weeks. LOL!

Molest children?!?!?!? That explanation got scary real quick.

GUESS - move on. Aint nobody got time for this. 1 minute and 30 seconds.

Dear LSAT:

HORSE SHIT

Sincerely,

Me

#HELP Please help: I mapped this out correctly. My confusion is shouldn't the correct answer be:

Skiff's book is as important as he claims it is if it is published this year.

or

Skiff's book will not be published this year unless it is as important as he claims it is

Based on the mapping that J.Y. did, "published" is the sufficient of the premise and "important as he claims it is" is the sufficient of the conclusion.

When an AC states part of the conclusion, it should be in the necessary condition - not the sufficient. What am I missing?

Thank you in advance.

Yeah, uhhhhhh Kevin definitely won the DISCUSSION battle on this one. LOL.

The LSAT is in 2 weeks. Stop second-guessing yourself. You're ready for this.

@pamelajkok Now that makes sense! That turned the light bulb on for me. "still" in AC C does change everything. Thank you for your comment.