I thought we don't select things that just simply state the premise is wrong. Or things that just say "well it's not possible to get data on this"

It feels like a completely unwarranted assumption that avoidance of dairy may cause negative health effects. How would we have made that guess without appealing to outside knowledge (which is the last thing we ought to do on the LSAT)?

@watersam10151992 absolutely. Feels like a completely unwarranted assumption that avoidance of dairy may cause negative health effects.

What a garbage argument lol, probably the worst one on the LSAT I've seen yet

@Remember_Iryna_Zarutska lol would you be similarly offended if the tutor only used male pronouns?

@zachmaretz111 I loved JY's slight hesitation after he clearly realized the implication of saying "voicy horns" lol

How do we know the claim in the square box is biconditional? I thought only indicated group 2 necessary

Lol I feel strawmanned. Who else didn't just pick B because of seeing "at least some" ?

Isn't it also a necessary assumption that people (in either time) are correctly able to identify what it means to be worthy of domestication? I'm confused because this point doesn't seem to be addressed by the argument or any of the answers.

"Solely" really screwed me up. In retrospect though, the solely is really needed for this to be a proper SA question. Since the rule ensures that the stimulus must end up being true, the solely needs to be there so that the stimulus can conclude beyond reasonable doubt that Checkers was trying to hurt Marty's.

@HilarySackor It does weaken the analogy. It is listing properties of the columnists city that are different from the other cities used at the end of the argument to analogize. When you have an analogy, the more different the two things being compared are, the weaker it is as a logical argument.

Let's say you want to know what happens if you open a brand new restaurant in NYC. Imagine I explain to you exactly what happened when I opened a restaurant in say Charleston SC, that it was extremely successful, and gave that as a reason to open the same kind of restaurant. Well my analogy is weak because Charleston has significant differences, it is smaller, a completely different culture, presumably different people with different food presences, different tax codes etc...

So that is what the original argument is doing. It's basically saying that "these other cities that you compared our city to is too different in respect to size and economy." By elucidating that difference, it has made the analogy worse.

I think there is another flaw with B. Even if you change "many" to "most" I don't see that as impacting the argument. Even if most marketing campaigns fail, what drawback is there to trying it anyway? B doesn't give us any reason NOT to try to marketing campaign, because there is no cost to simply trying, even if you were likely to fail. D on the other hand reveals that there is indeed a cost to attempting the marketing campaign in the first place.

@jjjjffff Even if you change "many" to "most" why would that impact the argument? If most marketing campaigns fail, what drawback is there to trying it anyway? B doesn't give us any reason NOT to try to marketing campaign, because there is no cost to simply trying, even if you were likely to fail. D on the other hand reveals that there is indeed a cost to attempting the marketing campaign.

@JackFoley I don't think you being confused is a necessary condition for JY being unable to explain stuff to clients lol

For E, what about the fact that the passage doesn't explicitly specify that an antibiotic is or has been used against X? I was thinking E was wrong because the passage doesn't specify that antibiotics were ever used on X before

@Remember_Iryna_Zarutska It seems like you are the only one here to force an agenda