I picked A over C because of this. But looking back, C is the only AC that could possibly explain it. We know that wolves are predators, so even if there are no other predators, we'd still expect to see the moose population decline from the wolves alone. C provides a mechanism that could explain the how the wolves prospered while the moose population grew - it doesn't guarantee the outcome described, but it makes the most sense out of the ACs. If it said the wolves "mostly" or "only" kill diseased moose, then it would be even stronger. But "often" still helps explain it.

I wanted to choose B but ultimately did not because increased standard of living does not necesarily mean financial benefits. Standard of living could be defined in terms of healthcare, education, environment, and so many other nonfinancial factors. How do we know when it's appropriate to make an assumption like this (standard of living = financial) on the LSAT?

I missed this (chose D) because I was thinking of an overfishing/tragedy of the commons scenario where as more anglers fish for Bass, eventually there will be less bass caught. Good lesson not to overthink!

@OliviaSullivan I had the exact same thoughts. A refuge is not protecting a NATURAL habitat, so I thought the AC was meant to trick us. D made the most sense to me because economic benefit would mean that the effort is not completely wasted.

what if the devices are so ridiculously expensive that even outfitting a few of the cattle would still be more expensive than a fence?

I eliminated E because it failed to include anything about accepting modifications to the code, which was a big part of the second paragraph.

I was between A and C but eliminated A because it doesn't explain why infants stare. Sure, their facial recognition abilities may be innate, but it fails to explain why infants stare. Associating faces with the necessities of comfort and nourishment would provide more of an explanation (e.g., expectantly staring for food/comfort) - also, how can we assume that a few hours is an insufficient amount of time to learn?

I eliminated B because for it to be correct, we would have to make an assumption that attacking the respiratory systems would lead to high death rates and that destroying cell walls of P-Plankton would lead to a 10% drop in population.

Do the relative weights of the factors (labor, materials, and reputation) in determining the price play any role in the argument? I chose D because I assumed that even if a wine has a bad reputation, it could still be expensive and good because the quality (labor and materials) are so good that they outweigh the reputation factor.

For #10, I read "Regardless of the perceived and actual ecological effects of the purple invader...." in in P2 of Passage B as taking a neutral position to the argument of passage A (that Purple Loosestrife has disastrous ecological effects). I interpreted this as author B does not care what the actual effects of Loosestrife are, only that motivations for removing it are economic. In this way, author B is neutral to author A's argument, no?

For #4, I eliminated D because Passage A says "Yet questions still remained regarding the precise mechanism used to transmit that information" regarding Frisch's work. I guess I thought that the questions referenced were the "fundamental questions" in the AC, and if they were unanswered, D would be incorrect.