The logic: premise 1 her novels condense crises → premise 2 crises raise moral questions → so it's unfair to say she's indifferent to moral questions.

The premises establish that her novels raise / involve moral questions (because the crises do). But the conclusion is that it's unfair to call her novels indifferent to moral questions.

A hidden leap: just because a novel condenses a crisis, does that mean the novel isn't indifferent to the moral questions the crisis raises? A novel could poetically condense a crisis and still be indifferent to the moral side of it — focusing only on, say, the emotional or aesthetic aspect. The argument needs to rule that out.

B: "A novel that poetically condenses a major emotional crisis does not have to be indifferent to the important moral questions raised by that crisis."

This fills exactly that gap. It says: condensing a crisis is compatible with not being indifferent to its moral questions. Without B, the argument breaks — maybe her poetic condensation is indifferent to the moral dimension, and the premises wouldn't defend her.

(I got some help from Claude for a better understanding. Yes!)

spent 4 minutes and got it right yay!

During my BR, I changed answer choice from C to A. If we read the C carefully, "the one should believe it" phrase does not necessarily indicate the tradition.

I liked how he compared the answer choice D with RRE question type vs. principle question type.

@floresbrenda26494 I got it right as well but re-reading the stimulus after your comment it makes much sense why B is an answer

main conclusion trap.. Signal: "as we have agreed," "it is well known," "everyone accepts" = premise (NOT conclusion). Conclusion = the new claim argued from it.

the conclusion in the stimulus: UFS -> up in sales

answer choice a: contrapositive of the conclusion reaffirming The author's argument

can't believe I got this one right! going over each answer choices and writing down my reasons were very helpful

just fell into the trap.

got the answer correct but took a long time to somehow translate the stimulus in to logic somehow..

Cannot A without B = A -> B

Cannot A from bad B =A -> good B

b was a trap. Problem 1) doesn't touch property rights. the core of the paradox is protecting property rights <-> restricting property rights. but b swaps property rights out for taxes. Problem 2) b drifts to a different topic (taxes). Whether the owners want the laws for tax reasons or not, the council's contradiction still stands..

@hyobinc2179 this is exactly how I came to answer choice B

this one was definitely tricky.. obviously did not think that B could be an answer at all

at first I picked B because of the phrase in the years before the factory closed. I assumed the mismatch of time frame. But during BR, I realized its C as then it strengthens the author's claim.

who do not work in suburb... that got me.. ugh

do you guys do drills as well when doing taking LR reasoning courses?

so foolish of me. Draw all the conditional and did not think of connecting it.. sigh..

@20828 I picked E as well..

@lillbarboo this is how I solved it too. Embedded condition is somewhat unnecessarily complicated

3/5 and then 4/5.

@PrateekDevulpally this is such a valuable advise. saving this for sure

first time 5/5!!! so happy. Thank you for all the lessons will keep go on

I loved this lesson

@ColinErickson this is awesome. Thank you for sharing

thought the editorial flipping the causal relationship (A->B to B->A) was offering a counterexample. "counterexample" in lsat=a concrete example that breaks a generalization or correlation.