I think E is wrong because it has a gap, saying that the instances in which an officer did something beyond what is reasonably expected IS SEPARATE from the instances in which the act saved someones life. There is no indication in AC E that these two clauses happen together. If you look at the passage it goes like this...

If the act saved someones life, then the officer is eligible for the award if they did something this year that went beyond what was reasonably expected.

Because the passage says that "saving someones life" is the sufficient condition, this needs to be true(on top of having an exemplary record).

E DOES NOT 100% give us that truth.

This is how I understood it and I hope this helps others.

First video where the explanations actually helped me lol

For D to be correct, you would have to assume that the existing marketing campaigns have a higher success rate/are will be more successful than this new one?

I swear this question appeared earlier on in the cirriculum

@hammer the correct answer will often be subtle, instead of a clear-cut explanation.

@epayne17 agreed lol. I have just been practicing them so I am able to recognize patterns in the AC's.

@KeziaH19 same lolllll

Does anyone have any tips on how to get better at these types of questions? I still struggle on the 1 star weaken and strengthen questions really badly. I just have a hard time seeing the bridge to the correct answer choice.

@kimwexler As someone who scored lower than you on their first LSAT, I agree that these videos are stupid. They only give hope to those who have a score of like 155 without studying.

@smcat probably because their first scores we not even "bad" lol. They probably started off with like a 155, which by no means AT ALL, is a bad score.

@epayne17 my exact reasoning for picking D

These easier weaken questions REALLY make me overthink the AC's

For answer choice D to be the correct choice, wouldn't you have to assume that the attention from the public is good? Or that the good/positive attention outweights the negative attention?? And how do we know what strength this attention is?

From being told to not make assumptions to then having a chain of assumptions is wild.

I don't know if I got lucky but I chose D and it was correct. I read through the stim and the passage. I knew I was looking for an explanation that DID NOT solve the discrepency given by the passage.

So, looking at the answer choices, only one of them, D, is using the words "no more likely" to compare two aspects of two different aged groups of people.

With these questions I get reminded of the spectrum of support, where this would fall in the middle, offering nothing because "no more likely" indicates that the same outcome could/couldnt happen. If the same outcome would happen, why is there even a discrepency??

So, D is the correct answer because it indicates there is no discrepency, when there indeed is one. Therefore, it DOES NOT explain the findings.

It is crazy how I do so well with the examples and the lessons and then do this drill and get 1 answer correct lol

Am I the only one that feels like on the easier inference questions, you do not have to have conditional relationships in your mind?

By looking at the answer choices you can determine that at least 3 are just wrong if you read the passage carefully.

For me, throwing terms into the domain really helped on this question.

Domain: Members of the VideoKing Frequent Viewers Club

All of the derived conditionals from the passage, besides for the last sentence, fall into the domain. However, with Pat, there is no indication that she falls in or out of the domain.

All the passage says is that

1. she did not satisfy the 10+ videos in the past month

2. She recieves a discount from said(walnut) location.

Therefore, at least some (includes 1) person gets a discount while not being a member of the domain.

Maybe this was luck I do not know. But it made sense to me.

Even after reviewing several comments, I still cannot grasp in my head why answer choice C is incorrect. Can someone help me out?

@gurbytown I feel like this will not be the case for all of these MBT questions though. For this question it happens to work but I would not rely on it.

@shrooots same honestly I feel like it makes you overthink the problem

Can someone explain the gap between B and C? I am having a hard time on this question. My understanding is that the gap from B to C is saying that more gov control implies that this control is in the form of protection from a military invasion, but in reality that is only one form that this control can take??? Therefore B could cause C???

I feel like if you took Psychology in college, this is just extra info that you already know. If anyone needs help understanding this, I can do my best to explain it for you.

Is the word "corresponding" only being used to describe the correlational relationship between the ideas expressed in the causal claim? It is throwing me for a loop. I also interpret this to be a negative correlation. Any thoughts on this?

Can someone explain this? I am still confused. Maybe I am just overthinking the question idk. My understanding is that A is correct because planes without the technology do not recieve evasive action calls, But since planes with the technology do recieve these calls AND they do not pose risk, then A makes the conclusion stronger??