On me, but is it not a reasonable assumption to say that a "document", [when the passage uses the word document (WITHOUT qualifiers or referential wording) to mean an online document] is talking about online documents?

Maybe because this world has become so entangled with technology and this question was probably made during the Triassic, but when someone says document to me in real life I assume online document. Even then, the first point still stands, but I see how my bias comes into play.

I still don't understand why small houses wouldn't have narrow floorboards if they were cheaper at all, regardless by how much. Why would someone with presumably less money pay more for floorboards that are comparatively not status symbols and much more expensive? Do we assume wide ones are more available to the lower classes even though they're more expensive? If scarcity creates value wouldn't the narrow floorboards be more expensive? What kind of assumptions are these??

Not significantly cheaper usually means 'about the same price' but I also just took it to mean that they're not significantly cheaper, meaning they could be anything else, such as more expensive, which would strenghten the argument. Maybe LSAT writers were thinking this.

Confused -- big gap in labor demand between North and South then evened out, but migration remained steady.

A few assumptions in A but with the labor demand decreasing in the following decades from what it was in 1915 would mean finding jobs would be harder (and then assumption that time it takes shows how hard it is to find a job). Another assumption is "steady rate" which is fair because there's no evidence the evening out was steady or until 1960.

My train of thought after review:

Honestly not entirely convinced.

Most reasonable remedy I can think of is his LSAT example.

If X does not contribute at all to being good, then X would not make someone better than non-Xers.

I thought an alternative hypothesis here is that Thompson sucks in other ways, so he's not a better leader, so it doesn't matter if many believe that high-tax-opposers are better or if they actually are, if Thompson sucks in other ways then he's not the best person to lead the nation. Him being the best relies on the opinion of many, which is yes, insufficient evidence (both "many" and an appeal to opinion not fact)... I guess A does weaken better than C.

C seems a little far-fetched in hindsight (it did initially too)

I ruled out A heavily because there is no claim anywhere of being good, just that Thompson is better. With the faulty evidence in mind, I'm more tempted to attack that evidence's connection to the conclusion and show it's faulty (that the opinion of many is not true) than to resort to bringing up Thompson's other bad qualities as to why he's not the best. Attack the argument's support, not the truth of the conclusion in weakening questions, I guess.

My BR notes:

No AC sounds good.

E -- maybe those not directly in the town have to drive longer than 30 min (or however long getting ready + driving) and so wakeup at 7AM. Also assuming that teenagers outside of Granville attend Granville, and that it takes them long.

This requires 2 assumptions but it sounds the best regardless. Or it could just be ruling out the

Ohhhh. It could be ruling out that some other factor, X, reduced overall number of accidents involving teenage drivers. Like say both towns enforced more speed limits or something. If only Granville benefitted, then it gives more support to the argument that it was probably because of the later school day.

E

Honestly on "most supported" or "most strengthens/weakens" etc. it's best to choose the AC that has either/both the least amount of and most reasonable assumptions made.

Assuming that Granville is the only school that implemented this policy (because this is sort of like the experimental group, and we're only told Granville tried this out and nobody else), then ruling out that other towns didn't also have less accidents makes it seem that the later school day is what caused the less accidents exclusive to Granville

I saw D as more detached from the cosmologist's approach than B was. In my mind, the cosmologist wishes to solve the dark matter problem. They find a tool to do so, but the tool only covers 20% of the problem -- and there are likely better tools/theories that would explain dark matter better. The child wants to earn money by delivering papers. They only have enough resources to use one tool to achieve this goal, though this tool is (presumably) less efficient than other tools (/theories).

The addition of 'asking the other children for money' is confusing, as well as the idea that money is supposed to encapsulate the theories and ways to understand the universe, as if developing theories is as linear and easy as just getting more money -- which is extremely foreseeable, certain and achievable.

@coochicriminal I was caught up on this too, as well as the "command" = "control", because there are a lot of cases where I can command something but I don't control it.

Again with the wizards are spellcasters, that's somewhat acceptable and probably in the accepted definition of wizard, but it's weird to change it up because that's not an exact subset/superset. If they were switched that definitely wouldn't make sense, because spellcasters could be witches, or warlocks, etc. depending on what culture you're familiar with.

I haven't gotten to the logic section but formal logic tells me C makes the most sense (even though I chose B):

Premises:

If price paid for beans increases --> Shop inc. prices

If Shop inc. prices --> begin selling noncoff V coffee sales dec.

If begin selling noncoff --> prof dec

If coffee sales ~dec --> prof ~dec

Follow the logic: makes sense up to the 3rd if, then just have to reverse the 4th from:

~P --> ~Q

~~Q --> ~~P Modus Tollens

Q --> P

If there is no decrease in profit then coffee sales did not decrease. so,

prof ~~dec --> coffee sales ~~dec

prof dec --> coffee sales dec

Put it all together, If price paid for beans continues to increase then overall profitiability will decrease, guaranteed.

My hypothesis is that stronger arguments require less, if any, assumptions.

There are missing pieces in the Tigers and Mr. Fat Cat arguments. For the tiger one, assumed premises could be 'If a mammal is aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people then it is not suitable to keep a a pet', 'Tigers are mammals' and then you have the 'Tigers are aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people'. Therefore, not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. This follows a strong line of reasoning, similar to the Disney scenario = it is a stronger argument.