This is one of the few questions where I didn't miss it by overlooking something or making a stupid assumption. I just straight up did not see the flaw, and I commend the LSAT writers for this sneaky Q. Also, as I'm sure this type of flaw will show up elsewhere, I'm happy to have encountered this SOB question now.

'E is clearly right, I don't see what's wrong.'

The above argument is most flawed in its reasoning because:

Na just messing with you, but dude above is right, it did provide no insight lol. I do agree though that you don't really need outside assumptions - something either starts at one time or another, it does not start at both.

I got this wrong under timed conditions and just KNEW that it was wrong before I even went for the BR. This is one of those flaw questions that I wasn't about to map out, so I stared at it for about a minute in BR before the flaw finally came to me.

I think what's difficult about this question is that most of the core curriculum goes over standard PF questions (and rightly so because they are the majority) where we see very close mappings. But if we examine the stimulus carefully, it simply asks for the most similar flawed reasoning. Who cares how many premises there are when the support structure leading to the conclusion is the same? Well, all of us goddamit, which is why the test writers are right c*s for this one, but they're also abiding by the denotation they've set out in the stimulus.

With that said, I went after this with just the flaw in mind. There are two entities, A and B. If C happened, you'd need both of them. C didn't happen. Pick one at random. I had that floating in my head when answer choice A crystallized as the only AC that was arbitrarily choosing one of A or B to announce as wrong even though they could have easily chosen the other one with the information at hand. That took me 3 minutes in BR and I had taken another 3 minutes on the test itself. In the 80's and 90's, with these new PF questions that force you away from your mapping tendencies, it's almost necessary to have a flash of insight, which sucks ass because the stress of taking a test necessarily hampers that insight.

Well played, LSAT writers trying to force the curve back downward. Well played.

Very good explanation, thank you!

I hated the wording in the correct answer choice even though I chose it. 'An action' is such a strange way to phrase 'making a movie', and performing such an action is an even weirder way to go about it.

I mapped this weirdly but it worked for me.

More X's when A (correlation) than B (correlation)

_

Most X's for A

My dumbass forgot to read the word 'guest' and ended up infinitely confused.

I've noticed that they love to make E the correct answer choice for parallel questions in many tests, as if these weren't time-sinking enough.

Definitely helps to come up with your own analogous arguments to flesh this concept out.

Legolas claims that the sky is blue because the goldfish jumped into the river on Tuesday. However, his conclusion is clearly mistaken. The water levels in both the lake and the river were low on Tuesday, meaning that any goldfish would have had a difficult time making the crossing.

Didn't watch the video yet, but I got this one by thinking in straightforward terms of sufficiency and necessity.

Approximate age → feel comfy

Fail the sufficient condition.

Approximate age

You don't get to draw the conclusion that people don't feel comfortable approaching strangers by failing the sufficient condition. When the sufficient is failed, the necessary is free to do as it will. Even granting that people don't feel as comfy approaching strangers who aren't their own age, it stands to reason that there are still far more people not your age than who are your age, meaning that, overall, people may still end up approaching people outside their own age range as often or more often as people within it, leading to friendships. So, even without the language of sufficiency and necessity, I think this one is possible to get.

Depends. If I've just missed a question out of carelessness on a hard section, then I'll take up to 5 minutes to carefully weigh my answer. However, if there is something glaring like this one and the right answer is the first one I read, then I'll just pick it and move on. This one took me about a minute, but I've spent up to 10 minutes unpacking sufficient assumption questions. Taking 1:30 is not bad at all, especially during the curriculum. Maybe you'll want to speed up a bit during the test, but that's not until you have a robust understanding of the question type.

I think you mean the opposite?

I was really bad at these descriptive weakening questions before. For some reason, the MOR lessons combined with these few flaw questions up to this point have me killing these questions, like straight up just figuring out the flaw as I read and then finding it in the stimulus. Feeling great about it considering how badly sufficient assumption questions were crushing me just a week ago. Thanks team.

Correct, this video is indeed time marked for me.

Just here to say the 'rapturous power' is a dope ass phrase

I chose E by making an unwarranted assumption about the experiment. Since the stim said that the goggles were affixed to the owls before they opened their eyes, I assumed that they ran the experiment when the owls couldn't see anyway, meaning that the conclusion would be totally irrelevant because the experiment wouldn't even be testing what they were claiming to test. That's obviously unreasonable because scientists are not going to run an experiment about vision with owls that cannot see.

Every time I see 'Ethicist' in the stim, I know shit's about to get real

Exactly the same thing happened to me. 'A conclusion... supporting the MAIN conclusion'. Damn!

At least they did us a favor by making this an argument part question...

Same lmao I almost spit out my coffee when I saw the 5-star rating

Not as evil as the sufficient assumption questions

I stared at this question for 10 minutes before realizing it was an RRE, lol

I identified a different defect in A. The argument explicitly refers to the use of colored paper in different contexts, i.e., in different compositions. However, A only refers to the use of paper in a given context, which doesn't necessarily lead us to believe that the statement about texture holds when those same papers are applied to different contexts. Even irrespective of A affecting the argument in the same way that the other premises do, it cannot supply support to the conclusion about the utility of colored paper in different contexts and therefore cannot be necessary for the argument.

Before starting the curriculum, these were my worst question types. Now they're becoming my favorite. Thanks JY!

D is definitely the best answer, I'll grant it that, and I know the right answer just has to be the best answer and not the perfect one. But this pisses me off because I don't think it's actually necessary.

Go ahead and negate D. Then we're left with the fact that no trees have been planted where native grasses would otherwise be growing. That leaves plenty of room, however, for the trees to harm native grasses in other ways. These could be trees with wide canopies that don't leave enough sunlight for the native grasses to survive. That means you could plant a row of trees NEXT to native grasses without displacing native grasses and those grasses could still die because the canopies stretch over where they do grow, block sunlight, and kill the grasses.