This entire question made no sense to me. The Stimulus made no sense and neither did the answer choices. Need to heavy review this.

Took significantly longer but got where I needed to. Took 5 minutes LMFAO

I feel like these question types, are very predictable once you keep getting flaw questions as they will fall into one of the many different buckets you'll be able to detect. It's just a matter of it being rephrased and grasping what's being said in the answer choices.

We've seen this question before. I've had a few recycled questions coming up over and over that i've noticed.

This video is really helpful!!

Probably one of the worst explanations to this, doesn't sufficiently show why they are wrong.

I knew the answer on my own, but the answers to the questions are worded so awfully that it's impossible to understand what they are even tryna say. If the LSAT was a fill in the blank styled exam I would smash it.

Got it wrong twice.

When he said C was right my brain had an explosion I had immediately crossed it off and I was like THANKS

Initially 3/5, then looked back and 5/5. I see what I did!

I was 43 seconds under suggested timed SHEESH

I feel like he overcomplicated the HELL out of this question.

GREATTT Chose C and then Chose a

OMG I took exactly the amount of time recommended LMFAOO

FUCK I made a mistake in reading and interpreting the premise for #2. I thought The stimulus was saying 'Thus, it will not as effectively attract the sort of viewers likely to continue watching the program JUST as would the advertisement that the program's producers favored" my brain filled in the gap with a word and interpreted them as being similar when that is not what the stimulus was saying. When he read it out loud in the explanation without even discussing answer choices, I caught my error INSTANTLY. Now B is very clearly the answer if we negate B, the program producers favored becomes LESS effective to attract the sort of viewers continuing to watch the programs which conflicts with a premise in the stimulus. FUCKKK. Importance of reading closely IG.

FUCK I made a mistake in reading and interpreting the prewmise. I thought The stimulus was saying 'Thus, it will not as effectively attract the sort of viewers likely to continue watching the program JUST as would the advertisement that the program's producers favored" my brain filled in the gap and put just saying they are both the same. When he read it out loud in the explanation, I caught what I did INSTANTLY. Now B is very clearly the answer if we negate B, the program producers favored becomes LESS effective to attract the sort of viewers continuing to watch the programs FUCKKK. Importance of reading closely IG.

80% initially and 80% after BR. I get cooked by all 4 and 5 questions and do well on all others. This took me a ridiculously ABSURD amount of time to get completed i'm not even gonna lie. I missed B tho/ I initially chose C and then I chose A. Time to see what I did incorrectly.

"Lets look at this question, its a pretty tough question" is something i've heard 9/10 times in this section. It's PMO so much

Only took me 14:28 minutes!! :D

Yeah I think I've gotten almost every. single. necessary assumption wrong PERFECT. Chose A, WRONG. Chose C, WRONG. And then D comes outta nowhere. I feel like i'm getting nowhere with these. Every time I reflect and learn my lesson on the last question theres a new fricking trick.

B is wrong because it treats the sufficient condition as an established fact, even though the argument only discusses what would happen if that condition were met. The argument does not depend on that condition actually being met. It took me a while to understand why D is also incorrect. It is incorrect because I thought negating it meant they don't use electricity at all and how are they cutting costs if they aren't using electricity. But D says electricity as their PRIMARY source of energy. Negating that doesn't mean they aren't using electricity. They aren't using it, it just isn't their primary source. So it does nothing to the argument. C is the correct answer because if you negate it, they wouldn't SAVE money. Sure it would still reduce elecrtic bills but money would NOT be saved. There is an assumption all other costs are held at a level that wouldn't affect savings. I didn't even consider this because I looked at electric bill only. Questions like these are so SO nit picky. Small things add up to make my brain explode.

B is wrong because it treats the sufficient condition as an established fact, even though the argument only discusses what would happen if that condition were met. The argument does not depend on that condition actually being met. I don't get why D isn't the answer though. If we negate it and none of these places use electricity, how are they saving money on their electricity bill if they aren't even using electricity???

Chose B, then I chose D. Avoiding the answer like my life depends on it

I legit thought this through, read the stimulus, and found the EXACT answer in the answer choices, I didn't even bother to read the other options. LOL

My brain has a hard time understanding what this question even means so I often start picking sufficient assumption or strengthen answers. I need to be very very careful in choosing the answer here. It's so particular/