@lebronfan (skull emoji)

I got this one right, but I find it to be a fairly poor question, especially for something as objective as a Necessary Assumption question. (A) isn't really STRICTLY necessary . It's not necessary that feeding on the Natal grass cycad is the only means by which the leopard magpie moth CAN make itself highly unpalatable to predators, it is only necessary that feeding on the Natal grass cycad is the only means by which the leopard magpie moth WILL make itself highly unpalatable to predators. It sometimes feels like the test punishes you for being too smart. Say, for instance, the caterpillars can eat limestone to become unpalatable to predators, but they also find limestone to be highly unpalatable themselves, and thus, they simply won't eat it, despite being a possible solution to become unpalatable. This still allows the conclusion to stand. #help

@heron2078 That doesn't answer his question. You can't answer someone's question about why a necessary assumption fails by giving him a different necessary assumption. Two necessary assumptions can exist at the same time, so they're not exclusive.

@Sepshams Correct! Many people get tripped up on SA, and even some NA questions, where they believe they have to incorporate every single bit of the stimulus.

@PowerUp_Tutoring Okay, fair enough, I'll go as far as to say it's just a premise, then. "THE practical joker." Does that not tell us there really is A single practical joker?

Just because a meeting SHOULD be a certain way doesn't mean it WILL be that way.

@JulietteCNeveu This logic could just as easily be applied to answer A. "Even if we assume that A is an incentive for staying in school, it does not weaken the idea that the program in the stimulus has not also affected dropout rates."

@pecanator Cherry-picking a study to reinforce your negative presuppositions about the police probably won't be enough to redact this LSAT question. Here's a separate, equally as cherry-picked study that leans in the opposite direction of your criticism:

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2021/04/20/988769793/when-you-add-more-police-to-a-city-what-happens

@RishabhRaj A case being "typical" is NOT a prerequisite for Necessary Assumption questions. It simply needs to be POSSIBLE. I don't find this explanation particularly convincing under the guise of "well that probably wouldn't happen," it only matters that it COULD happen.

It seems that everyone is calling C incorrect for the wrong reasons, or intentionally ignoring the more difficult portion as to why C would potentially be the correct answer. In the comments, there are a plethora of people taking the low hanging fruit of acknowledging that "one of the highest offers" may include the single highest offer, then either ignorantly or dishonestly omitting an explanation about the "cannot determine" portion of the answer choice. Then we somehow do mental gymnastics to justify the notion of ensuring something will happen while simultaneously not being able to determine whether it will happen or not, which is not possible. I cannot ensure someone that I have $1,000 in my bank account UNLESS I have factually determined that I indeed have $1,000 in my bank account. The real reason why C is incorrect, in my opinion, is that the answer is essentially a big red herring. Answer choice C has only indicated that World Oil has merely MADE AN OFFER, not that they are actually going to purchase the company. Thus, since we don't even know whether the company will be purchased by World Oil, these potential violations may not even be committed at all.

Questions like this just leave a bad taste in my mouth, even when I get them right. Something can have a beneficial EFFECT while still being nonbeneficial OVERALL. If you meet a man who gives you $20 then saws your arm off, would you have considered that man to be beneficial?

@PowerUp_Tutoring I don't think so. You can't imply someone has an opinion or value judgement on something they don't know about. If I think a gas stove is very hot, but I don't know the sun exists, that doesn't mean I think the stove is hotter than the sun. I just haven't been informed about the sun yet.

The written explanation comes off a little dishonest. "Jenkins thinks that not wasting money is the most important consideration," and Jenkins never makes that point. In all honesty, he doesn't really imply that either.

@PowerUp_Tutoring But before Lurano's response was made, did Jenkins actually even know that January and February posed risk to researchers? Why should the test-taker make that assumption?

@am4ndapanda C also doesn't say anything about the quantity of lamps

Funny observation about this particular question: You can just throw the second sentence away and answer the question more clearly.

@Ramisul17 I thought the exact same thing. No response from anyone either. Interesting...

Doesn't A just deny an implicit premise??

This question is really funny when you look at it because the last line is completely irrelevant and adds nothing to the question.

@Kevin_Lin The written explanation certainly does a better job of addressing that the argument lies within the justice system as a whole being inconsistent, rather than the judge as an individual component/actor. I am still a little lost on how I'm supposed to know that focusing on the judge specifically is too narrow. Is intent or lack of knowledge not an excuse for inconsistency in this context?

@shippiinguyen I suppose I'm taking some interesting liberties here, but reasonableness can be very flexible, so I'm still figuring it out.

@nathanbrowny2 I think you would just remove the "not" making it "more likely"

I'm not sure if anyone else has made this point yet, but I believe that people are making the wrong arguments as to why B should or shouldn't be correct. The reason why B is incorrect in my opinion, is the use of the word "most" in the answer choice, and the use of the word "can" in the stimulus, stating that the mandated programs CAN help these regions overall. I agree that if every economy in these regions of natural beauty are based primarily on local industries that would be harmed by governmentally mandated environmental protection, then yes, B would be necessary. However, this hypothetical is only applied to MOST of these areas, thus still leaving the POSSIBILITY that the mandated protection CAN help these economies overall, not that they are guaranteed to.

@Kevin_Lin  Even according to Oxford Dictionary, being prosperous is defined as "The condition of being prosperous, successful, or thriving; good fortune, success, well-being, wealth," so while wealth CAN be an indicator of prosperity, it isn't really sufficient for prosperity, being successful, or thriving. So, my point here is that, looking at this question, I don't even think the dictionary definition really matters. While raising someone's financial prosperity wouldn't necessarily increase their state of thriving, say, they already have a terminal uncurable terminal disease, it would however be reasonable to think reducing one's financial prosperity is a threat to their overall prosperity, particularly in modern day. I didn't mean for my comment to come off as hostile. I may have been rolling my eyes through the screen a little bit, but that was the extent of it; you're an incredible instructor.

@TestLles "None" isn't the word being affected here, "conclusions" is.