I missed this one that apparently 80% get right, and i’m still dumbfounded. A correlation is not inherently positive right, or am I going crazy? What if it’s a negative correlation? I ended up picking D because it technically strengthens albeit minimally IMO.

C is completely ambiguous as written and could plausibly strengthen or weaken.

Wowza I took this PT as my inital diagnostic and came back a few months later to do this section and missed this question again. I usually try and stray away from very general answers on these types of principle question.

My problem with C was that it's quite vague. I picked B but didn't love it. I understand that the fund wouldn't go to the specific victims of a specific burglar, but it seems reasonable enough to say that the money is going to the "same individuals" that "burglars" as a whole victimized.

C just really doesn't justify the principle/support the argument, but, if you want to apply the language of B as strictly as A, I guess C is better than B.

All in all, I think this question would be a miss for me on the real thing in a couple weeks lol.

None of the answers are supported here. I picked D but changed to B (hated both) as D is not supported. There is no inclination from the stimulus that the milk from BST treated cows can be presumed safe only if it is screened for antibiotics.

7Sage explanation for B is terrible. Anti-supported is way too strong. The stimulus does not ever establish a potential for high amounts of antibiotics in BST milk. Only that antibiotics are given to BST cows more often than regular cows. I would read both B and D as unsupported.

Here is relevant information:

1. We have no evidence that treating cows with antibiotics EVER causes antibiotics to show up in their milk in the "high levels" that "may be harmful". This means we are not able to establish that high levels are harmful or that the milk ever reaches high levels.

2. We know that BST treated cows are more likely to be given antibiotics than other cows, but no relationship is established other than more likely. (E.G. could be 0.2% to 0.1% or 90% to 10%).

3. We know that the milk of both types of cow is regularly screened.

Here is an alternate explanation that completely disputes D:

One farmer uses BST but does not ever treat cows with antibiotics.

This milk could be presumed safe without fulfilling the necessary condition of being screened for antibiotics (other screening might be needed, I'm not saying it's guaranteed to be safe.)

Lol I ended up picking A because I made an inference that, if we can assume some plants are important to human beings (oxygen creation, medicine, plantations), then some diseases that presumably harm/kills those plants indirectly affect humans.

I'm not really sure that B is more supported than A, but what a hellacious question.

This question is interesting because it says conforms to the principle illustrated above, but it's actually a parallel question in practice. Not really sure why that was necessary. None of the answer choices conform to the principle above.

The analysis on the question does a poor job of explaining the answer. I also think the question itself is quite poor, but by POE A is perhaps more reasonable than C.

"but the stimulus text also cautions against eating too much fat because “fat in one’s diet is generally unhealthy.”"

This is objectively untrue. The dietitian absolutely does not caution against eating too much fat. This statement seems more like a concession (I accept that fat is generally bad, BUT we need it to process vitamin A). In my mind, this constitutes "undermining" the claim which is why I picked C. I knew that C was likely to be incorrect because of the word "completely" and that "undermine" might be a stretch, but I was unwilling to commit to any of the other answers.

Upon reviewing this for a while I think you can stretch the stimulus enough such that A can kind of make sense, but it is, at best, intentionally misrepresenting the actual meaning of the statement.

A more accurate answer A would look like:

"It is a generalization that, if heeded, could lead someone to adopt a dietary practice that the dietician provides a reason for not carrying to the extreme".

The statement is not mentioned as a reason for adopting a dietary practice. That simply does not follow from the stimulus, and I think it is part of why this question gave me a lot of trouble. A is a huge logical leap/unsupported inference. I wonder if the LSAT writers truncated the stimulus more than normal here and left a key part of it out.

@GojoLebronVegetaBatman

If people failed to notify the post office that they moved into the city, then we would expect the total number of household moving into the city to be underreported. This weakens the argument.

@LenyGrunis I thought this as well but the cool thing about this argument is that Walt having the Genie+ pass is not actually relevant at all to the conclusion.

You can remove the Genie+ Pass from your line of reasoning entirely.

1. Those (members) who have offered ten goats' worth of propitiations to Mickey Mouse can download their Genie+ pass via the Disney app.

2. All other members must prostrate themselves before Goofy's altar in the Magical Kingdom.

3. Walt is a member of the Disney vacation club.

Therefore, Walt must have offered the requisite propitiations to Mickey Mouse.

The Genie+ Pass is actually irrelevant here. I got caught up on this argument originally because I felt like there was a logical leap that the Genie+ fast pass is the same as the Genie+ pass in the argument

Why did this terminology change? Could an amusement park not have both a Fast pass and a pass? Could Walt have had the Genie+ Pass BEFORE he became a member?

But then I realized that that the rest of the statements are sufficient without even considering the Fast pass!