Fat eye roll from me on this question for sure. I try to remind myself that on LR questions, "evidence" simply means any premise the opponent/stimulus uses to back up a claim no matter how unsound and weak.

The objection here counts as evidence because the critic points out that the correlation is not universal — meaning there are many cases where people still gesture while using abstract words.

The author responds by citing a psychological fact (that some people mentally interpret those words as physical actions), which explains those exceptions and shows they don’t really disprove the correlation. Also, fact here does not pertain to a real world legitimate fact, just an informational statement provided by the author.

B genuinely aggravates me. Through every lesson, we are told to ignore logical opposites, don't bring out outside information, and you can only negate the conditions not turn them into opposites. But then this question just violates that. Oh well, I guess you do have to find logical opposites, and just rule out the other answer. Awesome. Love when I have to throw out foundatiohnal things I learned. Great okay so from now on, the negation of happy is sad? instead of not happy, the negation of light is dark instead of not dark.

but don't you have to assume that being a pathological liar is not rational person? We have a definitiuon for rationality in passage B, acting on principles, but we do not know if a pathological liar is acting on principles or not... like okay what if they are a strategic pathological liar, what if they do expect people to treat them the same way... IDK DO WE KNOW IT IS IRRATIONAL THAT IS A FRIGGIN OUTSIDE ASSUMPTION LSAC I HATE YOU

@cmatura416 I am with you. This lsat question made me roll my eyes so hard. Fr? I felt like I was swiped by swiper the fox. Or a troll under a bridge, it felt like such a whimsical character riddle.

How I broke this question down: While I do agree that C would be the next best answer, it does not explain why the seated workers are more prone to injury. So, hypothetically, if we view this answer choice as "true" it only explains why some laborers might be "safe", and does not challenge the conclusion that office equipment is the main contender. Being that it is a weaken question, the level of validity to the answer choice does not have to be 100%. The lsat does sometimes use words that are "synonymous" within these kinds of question types, so physical exercise is equivalent to physical work here... simply because they are moving around more. I know I know, I hate it too and rolled my eyes so hard to this question. Godspeed soldier, you got this.