Excellent explanation, thank you! I wish you the best.

Good Job!

The majority of us struggled with this question, even though it is a pleasant one to read.

We have to read, analyze, and interpret the stimulus very fast. LSAT writers prey and abuse the bias and assumptions they know will arise under a time restriction process.

Nasty question!

Opportunity Vs. Make them participate (required).

You are a very concise, clear-straightforward way to explain.

That's because most of the LSAT writers are women.

hunt mode lol

Thinking fast, I chose A; then on the BR, I changed it for D

The politician, the smoker, the soil, green land, heart diseases, dinosaurs... lol

I wish to see the diagram J.Y. used to draw at the beginning applied to this question

D got me, as usual.

WOW! Thank you!!!

Thank you.

Very nice explicacion.

Please elaborate more, so we can understand?

Yes, it's ridiculous, and to me, AC: A means more sense. This question is a waste of time, in my opinion, should be removed from the curriculum: teach NOTHING!

Difficult right?

On top of that, the question says "in favor of "ONE PARTY." Which is even more confusing, suggesting that I should favor one party. In my opinion, AC: E favors both parties (in some). Besides that, genes sometimes express themselves, sometimes remain dormant. Very confusing.

#help. If the question states which AC "IF TRUE" most helps resolve the dispute, then assuming that C is true, the conflict is over. I don't care if they descended from non-prehistoric birds or from an alien spaceship that brought the earliest birth to our planet. C quickly ended the whole dispute straightforwardly.

I always chose the really attractive! :-(

FUNNY and relaxing...

"1 trap will attract the same number of beetles as several traps."

I'm afraid I have to disagree.

That's like to say that in a boulevard, 1-restaurant will attract the same # of customers as 20-restaurants.

Even the smell of food will be more the more restaurants are.

But you are making a big assumption: "the company was able to cover the extra cost."

What about if the production cost increased 800%, reducing production to a 10% reason why the sales drastically decreased. Prices could have dropped, and still, they couldn't even break even.