AC B says "should", meaning at this moment all drugs should have patents. That's not how patents work; they expire.

However, D is the closest other answer, and the fact that Dario says that research is costly indicates that there's disincentive for undergoing production of new drugs. new drugs produced → old drugs. And other than selling the same old drugs you can only tweak them to make a profit.

Q9 I'm confused on why we need to worry if we just got introduced to this magical "closing your eyes" solution.

Question 27: Oh boy. So if you read AC E and didn't choose it you might've been thinking the same thing as me: they didn't qualify the claim. You got distracted that the question didn't specify whether it solved the issue within England. Obviously the Glorious Revolution didn't solve issues of sovereign omnipotence in Africa right? Well, again the point is not to get so lost in your own world. If you read line 55, you would see that the author doesn't qualify the claim either. Who knows? Maybe he was talking about the paradox of sovereign omnipotence with respect to Africa. Or, in what is probably the most likely explanation, "the" problem of sovereign omnipotence is referential language. Either way, because the author doesn't qualify his claim, AC E doesn't need to either.

Question 24: I agree with the others in saying that this question seems a bit unfair. Do not fret. There's an apparent paradox in the passage (no pun intended). Line 20 says that powerful monarchs were having difficulty borrowing large amounts of money at "favorable terms", while Q24 implies that this fact was an inherent difficulty faced by monarchies with unlimited power in borrowing money. But why would favorable terms even matter if you could nullify the agreement regardless? Surely the question is wrong.

Lines 11, 14, and 17, however, suggest otherwise. Namely, that there is a practical issue faced by these monarchies as a result of their unlimited power. It's not your job to understand the underlying mechanisms of the paradox, just to know that borrowing is paradoxically easier when a monarchy has less power.

It's important not to assume that the last sentence of Paragraph 4 is the only consequence of the monarchs' actions. Doing so would lead one to believe that the monarchs' only issues were the higher interest rates and that their ability to finance their expansion was otherwise unhindered, hence mistakenly eliminating AC A.

In reality, acknowledging the main point (that power raises practical issues in borrowing that are alleviated somewhat with restriction) is all you need in order to determine the right answer.

An analogy would've been "it is clear then, that a person who can select between 12 different Caribbean islands to visit is less free than one who can choose to visit only these 5 places: Tokyo, Moscow, Paris, Rome, London.

B is the better choice I overlooked. It is accurate because our argument is assuming that just because the study says everyone who spends 3 or more years building the base can become successful, that if you spend 3 or less, you can't be successful

Forgot that it was a weakening question when coming back to it later, even though I knew that A weakened the argument by attacking the correlation. Don't forget the question type, it sinks points unnecessarily

The issue here is with the categories being addressed. I'm going to switch the words so that they make more sense for us:

Classical pianists → Boxers

Clara Schumann's Works → Rocky IV

The first: All 300 boxers in the world. Most of them have seen Rocky IV.

The second: All 12 billion non-boxers in the world. Most of them haven't seen Rocky VI.

The third. All people who have seen Rocky IV. This is a weird category, which is what makes this question tricky if you weren't prepared for it. But Rocky IV made $300 million at the box office. Hundreds of thousands of people have seen it, despite most people in the world not having done so.

FLAWED CONCLUSION:

You are most likely a boxer because you've seen Rocky IV.

Don't you see how silly that sounds now? With my numbers, only 300 out of the thousands who have seen Rocky IV are actually boxers. Of course, the number of boxers could increase to 12 billion in this hypothetical to make it true, but the point is you can't assume that because most pianists have heard of Clara's songs and Claudette has heard of her songs, Claudette is also a pianist. EVEN if the majority of non-pianists haven't heard of Clara's songs.

8. Why should I care that Obama and friends often deem the provisions in modification and termination contracts typical of already-inherent state powers? That doesn't really make it true no? And if it's based on opinion, does it really weaken the argument?

If you're thinking those things here's food for thought. We're talking about 1990 LSATs here. Don't get in your head about this one. You did a good job evaluating the weakness in that answer choice and it'll serve you well on future tests.

BONUS QUESTION:

The conclusion drawn follows logically from the premises only if which one of the following is assumed?

Answer:

Necessary Assumption. Watch out for only

What did we learn?

Conclusions referenced in the AC can be that of EITHER speaker.

- The relevant generalization is that most meteorologists will agree that no single aspect of the climate is controlled by a single variable

- The conclusion about a specific case is actually the meteorologist's conclusion that no single aspect of average land temperatures on Earth can be controlled by the Sun's luminosity alone.

Doesn't the contrapositive say that /PC → Ew? And taking the contrapositive of the stimulus gives us /PC → /Ew

Don't we know that the economy is weak, hence the prices can't be constant?

I really thought the LSAT writers were trying to make me think of book covers when they said they paper was acidic but the book would destroy itself completely

The question accounts for this variability by stating that her latest work holds at least one property of good literature.