can someone explain what allows us to assume that it cant have two sessions? why cant each committee have an assembly? what rule indicates that there can be only one assembly per day?

This is super critical and it flew right over my head. It super obvious now, but I don't see how we can reasonably assume only one session per day.

AC D is wrong because there is no relevance of the 5km specification to whether the radar or the data can measure the cloud altitude. The stim does not offer any reason to connect the type of measurement and the altitude minimum.

AC B is correct bc it shows that the two type of measurement are not dependent on each other. IF they were dependent on each other, then there would not be areas where the data could be used while the radar could not. Negated: it shows that we only need the radar data. This contradicts one of the premises.

what if you negate c? If the performance is not dependent on reasonable arguments? If that's the case, then there is no reason to reach the conclusion. Even if we grant that Britta's command of the facts is marginally better, we still cannot reach the conclusion.

Link? Would love to try

AC A describes the flaw by showing a situation where the two correlated events in the premises are not connected and the outcome could have been the same. The author is arguing that the bill is unpopular BECAUSE those that support the bill will lose elections. The argument is failing to establish that those events are sufficient to cause the outcome and lead to the conclusion.

AC A is asking what if the majority party had not supported the bill, would they still lose the seats? If this does not change the outcome of the elections, then it shows that there is not a connection and no reason to follow to the conclusion.

competitiveness is a mental aspect.

AC D does not account for the wounds that receive anti-bacterial ointment. Both the ointment and the explanation given in AC D do not explain how the honey has different results. Both only inhibit the growth of the bacteria but the honey allows healing faster. AC D does not explain why or how.

AC C introduces another factor that was not addressed in the stim. There has to be some other factor that the honey has that other two options do not have. AC C gives us 'properties that inhibit the growth of bacteria in wounds'. This factor is able to account for the growth inhibition in both the honey and ointment situations. It also is able to explain how it performs better than the ointment; it does not damage the surrounding tissue when applied.

AC C is wrong beyond what is addressed in the stim. Could be true, could be false. We don't have enough info to tell.

AC A is wrong bc it has too broad a scope. We do not know if the gains made by the initial use are completely exhausted later.

AC E is accurate. It shows that as time goes on, the efficacy of the pesticide goes down and as it goes down, the crop yield also decreases. Since the yield and the returns are connected, then it LOGICALLY follows that the returns will also decrease over time.

the last sentence is clearly the conclusion. I took out B specifically for this reason.

E is definitely support.

can we have a better explanation for AC A besides ' i know you guys dont actually think this is the right answer'

I thought that in AC B that the free samples would account for the increase amount of money that they put towards promotions. If more money was spent on free stuff then there would be less money allowed to send out reps. this would lead to less visits.

AC A is more correct bc it requires less assumptions than AC B does. AC A shows that if there were more reps then the distribution per rep would be less. There is the same amount of visits divided over a larger number, so the avg per rep is lower. This offers an alternative that weakens the conclusion that the reduction in visits is actually counter productive.

AC E will only make sense if you remove the first premise.

the classes do a great job at reinforcing the curriculum.

@aainjeans its called a reasonable assumption.

but we can digest caramelized sugar???

AC A feels like a big reach. you could remove 'The computer software industry is rapidly growing and has been for some time.' as a premise and the conclusion would still follow. The group to whole does not play a part in the authors conclusion. It does not make any claim based on the fact that the company is part of the whole. The conclusion is drawn based off the other premises.

can we have a better explanation for AC C??

page not found in the link in the analysis description.

'factual state' to 'complete state of the universe' is a bit of a stretch

Both would agree to AC D.

X: 'I'm not surprised.' can reasonably inferred that if they are not surprised, then they had an opinion that it would likely fail. Unlikely things are often surprising.

M: ' ne lacking indoor seating was likely to fail'.

Both would agree with AC D. Both X and M reasoning for agreement is dependent on having outdoor seating as well.

can we have better explanation why C or others are wrong besides what the video provides?

@rjon27 retweet

90% is not 'all his clients'. I didnt choose AC C bc the conclusion was made about '90 percent of my business clients'

@raceanu91591 welcome to the LSAT