Interesting,

I initially expected this to somewhat overlap with Mental State v. Reality tag

I wonder will that tag be covered later on the course

Interesting

So basically Flawed Attempts of Eliminate Options does

1) Fails to eliminate options properly by (potentially Link Assumption Tag)

2) Assume False Dichotomy (potentially Polychotomy)

Oh okay, so what I have been calling equating two different terms/conditions without justification was "Link Assumption"

I first read stim as : The zoo has more animals than enclosures [have animals]

so stim didn't make sense at all. LOL

This question single-handedly destroyed timing for entire section as I could not distinguish A and C, and it felt like so reachable and possible to distinguish if only i spared few more second, leaving me to spend more and more time.

Eventually figured out the distinction was on: A) Of the three suspects... <- This part which plays the same role as "culture known to be from the surrounding area" from stim. In contrast, C) states its conclusion that is not limited to of the 3 people.

Conclusion does not argue:

therefore we should implement the same precautions <- if this was the case, the answer would have been more about analogy.

instead conclusion argues that if implemented, would be conducive to progress <- which is completely "new" information/claim, therefore require some kind of bridging similar to some of SA type questions.

/condition -> NOT opposite result

Looking back at this Question I also noticed there was another flaw of:

no evidence => false claim

lack of independent reasons to deem the president's speech inflammatory does not mean that president's claim was in fact not inflammatory.

3 Flaws in this short Stim I hate this Q so much lol

Great take, never thought of negating in relation to characteristics of Sufficiency

TY

Loved this question, good reminder that /S does not lead to neither N or /N

Absolutely loved this question.

Thank god the Q.Stem told me that it was flawed, or else I would have missed it and got wrong.

I am so lost.

E) is talking of reducing price in Absolute scale, but it's relativity is still unknown.

I felt like E was typical relative vs absolute FLAW type of shit so I crossed out immediately.

Even if it is talking about price in open market, the moment it impose regulation, the highest price that it can command changes with the regulation and thus it is new normal isn't it? Instead of comparing price with Historic Highest value, or what it could have been hypothetically?

It is as absurd as saying current Highest bidding for stock price of Adobe 238.14 USD is not the actual "highest price in open market" in given moment because it reached 637.31 USD years ago

Repeated pattern of :

NA : Requires the existence of the given group. (at least one = some)

I was so sure C was bait of false dichotomy FLAW type of question.

It contrasts “extreme difficulty” with (not) “little or no difficulty,” so I thought it require wrongly ignoring the middle category of moderate difficulty.

Therefore, I thought C was wrong because it seemed to depend on treating those two extremes as exhaustive.

Forgot for the moment that this is MBT not SA, so that direction of support is from Stim to AC, not the other way around, damn.

Tremendously helpful.

lol this is literally a textbook example Sufficient Assumption or Flaw type of comment.

"Writer of this comment presumes, without justification, that OC ...." "The writer takes for granted that ...."

Kinda funny to see someone mocking another person's qualifications while making exactly the kind of reasoning error the LSAT is designed to screen for in the first place

Mental note reminder to check scope of who is thinking/doing what to/of whom

A) is a mix of two premises

1) There is no evidence of life on other planets

2) There is no reason to think that scientists will be successful in future

Problem with A) is that

1) Evidence is subset of Reasons. Therefore no evidence =/= no reason

+

2) writer(who) is thinking of no reason to believe (what) that scientists (whom) will ... , NOT making a general claim or rule excluding scientists = Thus Scope error

Okay, bit puzzled, but literally a SCOPE problem.

Original purpose is to give "authors" opportunity, but after death, those who receive benefit is not author

I need to practice bit more on being sensitive with scope

Pretty much saying that

1) What is useful for Gov's structure will be more popular.

2) Metaphor A is popular

3) M-A is more useful compared to M-B

(Therefore author subtly implies/expects that M-A is more popular compared to M-B without explicitly stating)

thus answer choice that rejects this expectation would weaken argument

Theodora defo on some kind of drug

"a mistaken assumption underlying arguments like that made in Passage A"

= an assumption actually underlying A’s argument that B would regard as mistaken

NOT what B mistakenly assumes from argument A.

damn, I should have spent few more second in digesting Q stem.

i got bamboozled

Cheers mate, wish best of luck for you

I might better suit with sequential approach hence partial POE isn't really bugs me for some reason.

On second thought, I could just do split, and instead of doing partial poe, i could just flag and skip & return after second passage