There's no real support for B in my opinion. Author indicates that oral tradition presents difficulties for the aboriginal claims, but expresses no indication that this proposed remedy is something he's support. You'd have to take in his generally sympathetic attitude towards the aboriginals from later paragraphs.

@AltanM That second thing is also new to me. So there is some pattern in LR?

@ConnerKline I would draw attention to the use of the term "symptom". Both group types exhibit failure to consider alternatives, self-censorship (deliberate or accidental), and general ineffectiveness. By surfacing several similar symptoms and no clearly unique symptom between the two group types, it becomes quite plausible that author would agree with E. It is only clear that he distinguishes the causes of the symptoms. Identifying several shared symptoms and no unshared symptoms suggests that it could be that all symptoms might be shared in the right situation.

Combine this with a somewhat tentative support ("typically, then") for B, and this becomes a question with a smaller margin between correct B and wrong E than most questions I've seen.

Chose E because of a shortage of time led me to read the passage generally to support that noncohesive and groupthink share the same symptoms: but those symptoms I refer to are simply ineffectiveness, fiascoes, failure to consider alternative options. Indeed, they do share MANY of the same symptoms, by different causes. Groupthink results from complacency, noncohesion from fear. It can be hard in real time to discard E because of the word symptom. Ineffectiveness, disregard of alternatives, lack of disagreement, self-censorship (deliberate or accidental) are all symptoms by different causes.

B and E are the only plausible responses I think, and the use of symptom suggests that the groups share at least some symptoms. The author never suggests they could share ALL symptoms, but he also neglects to occlude this possibility by identifying ANY one SYMPTOM that is clearly unique to groupthink or low-cohesion. By identifying many shared symptoms and no unique ones, it is plausible, even probable, that the author would agree with E. I see that B is perhaps more directly supported, but I would argue not by much and certainly by a smaller margin than other questions I've encountered.

@fenney_feng Passage A writes that it is a mistake (for a company) to not join this arms race.

Is this a Problem-Analysis type passage in addition to Critique?

@mamakhmudov Agreed.

Would this passage be considered a Problem-Analysis or a Spotlight? Seems to share features of both.

D seems like it captures the idea that this decision establishes some standards which can help affirm that course packs are okay. It therefore places some (new) limits on publishers as plaintiffs. I'm not sure I'm convinced by the distinction of the right to bring a suit vs the rights protected once that suit is on the docket. Seems like a procedural distinction that we shouldn't have to be familiar on (what are the various steps before a suit is considered filed/sought? I'm sure there are many intermediate steps and I don't think distinguishing between which step the plaintiff is restricted should be the point of our exercise).

Moreover, we must now decide if the passage is more about what happened in this one case, or about the impact of this one case more broadly. I suppose I read too much into language that suggests the latter since the case seems to lean into the various reasons/standards cited.

A new variety of question that I hadn't encountered before. The flaw is in parsing that "interpreted as" or "can be seen/understood/modeled/read as" to be indicative of "is". Usually, we encounter such language and overlook it in regular texts. As if we "live in the author's world" and he is simply accepting that his premises may not reflect reality. Of course, the rest of the LSAT is full of premises that do not reflect reality. So, we accept this and move on to looking for logical inconsistencies, which would lead us to D if we synonymize those terms incorrectly. The contrapositive of D is that fulfilling the necessary condition is enough to get us the sufficient condition. Still a middling answer since we still need the necessary condition if we are ever to get the sufficient condition. But E seemed petty at the time to distinguish. An interesting type of flaw that I did not know the LSAT would try to highlight.

The correct answer B is worded in such a weird way that I picked D because I was trying to refer to the same flaw (that gravitational forces are not the only factor at play). D sounds like that too because it "presumes...that most activity...is a result of gravitational forces". I had to overlook the expanded scope of oceans (new to LSAT) because it seemed to better refer to the idea of other factors. In fact, gravity is not a force subject to "conditions" per B. The other factors are not influencing the tides by first affecting gravity. They are simply other forces. There is sufficient ambiguity to suggest those third forces are changing gravity.

Ridiculous question because it seems to suggest that some third-party attenuation of gravity is what influences the tides. Which we know to be an outlandish suggestion, even approaching the LSAT with maximum naivete. It might help to misunderstand middle-school physics to get this right.

Explanation of question stem is wrong/confused. There's more DIFFERENCE in polarity than there is for later development features. Please correct.

Yeah, I don't think we have enough to say the author is pleased or displeased with anything. Author simply says "But as their (courts) awareness ... grows, Canadian courts will gradually recognize that ... their (Native Canadians) claims ... should be honored." Author could be hostile or friendly to what the courts will do but does not express pleasure.

However, it is obvious that the author is convinced it will happen.

@listening 1. "Gluck embraces it (this tradition and "canon of poets") with respect and admiration". 2. "the canon of poets in English as a literary family". It is perhaps not strong enough to support a stronger term than "achievement", like "supremacy", but I think "canon" is sufficient to imply "achievement". Any work that becomes canonical in its field should be considered an achievement.

Notably, the word "imposition" at its origin: Latin "imponere" or Roman "impositio" literally means to place upon or to set on, which is the meaning I applied. It is even possible to have read other texts that use the word "imposition" in a plain and literal way as the application of rules or customs.

In this way, E is tempting. However, "writing style" also goes too far as a restricted custom since Gluck inherits themes and forms.

I kinda disagree with the question and correct response. (D) conceivably causes harm from a lack of coordination due to confusion between customers and employees (who's an employee and who's not?). (E) also stems from a lack of coordination BUT we are not apprised of the relative other risks planes face at different altitudes. Perhaps small planes vs big planes vs slow planes vs fast planes incur relative harms flying at different altitudes due to fuel efficiency, aerodynamics, or resilience to weather conditions at different altitudes. Therefore, the risks encountered by planes may not be restricted to coordination issues. However, (D) presents a pure coordination problem since the choice of outfit is more defensibly arbitrary than the choice of which altitude a small plane vs a big plane is allowed to fly at.