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

@Stas1973 I think in a different context that would suffice, but my first post indicates the 'tricky' nature of the use of the word 'sport' in colloquial terms.

All of the above are helpful. Its not uncommon that one of the modes of explaining leave open some questions. Sometimes when taken together, they make more sense and strengthen some connections. All three are helpful. I would say that I prefer the video the most often; the elaboration of key points in the video/audio format makes tough questions easier to grasp. The discussion boards also offer some guidance as well.

Definitely a lvl5 question.

AC C does actually support the conclusion but not as strongly. AC C supports the first sentence that leads to the rest of the experiment, if it were not true, then it would weaken the argument. AC C is not the answer bc in the experiment, the psychologists only LISTENED to the recordings. There would be no way to SEE the displayed emotion that AC C offers as support.

AC D offers a full explanation of how the emotion effects the physiology of the body while singing.

The author makes 2 conclusions, AC C and AC E. C is a sub conclusion that leads to the final conclusion of E.

Drill baby Drill

@lexxx74569 AC B he needs to know to fall into the premises of the conclusion. AC B is arguably an answer bc how is he to 'benefit' if he does not know to improve?

@mhann007 Retweet

Any advice for an approach without diagraming?

Tricky tricky. Are there any sports that you would not be 'competing' against any other athlete? Even individual sports, you are competing against another athletes record, score, time etc.

@LowriThomas please elaborate what it has to be before last year. at 2.33 in the video, he explains that its possible to sell the trucks the same year as the purchase

Is it correct to say that this mistakenly uses the necessary condition as the sufficient condition?